An Pate ake ὑρφρῶσλην ὁ. ὀνκάξε νοι νῖς ἀλρρσὴνο. et ee 
Oe fede he Nando > Saal POE 


Pe Wiping then Hipp ip Ie = Phan Moe NS 

ett re TN inner tndelaaiaetaals arert ie: 

᾿ DvP as ety ΠΝ τ in Ma Mey Ne Settee Rte aN ean ee aw 
ον ἡ ee ae oe ge 


ee wre 
wet 


-““ὦ - tacit leit 
Anta” ae Arty 


ee πο ον ee 








i M 


TE ie 









Wet tiie hs / 











rs}: nts, EDS NORE YS Sut ORES MS TOES νι ΤῊΝ ΓΝ 
aaa «peste BAS Fite eee fie Re as 
[ ' 
ΠΑ ΡΝ ot Ve saicgdl® Yo witha: aaah age 
piiak oaneab A πο batting: wah {meen "ἢ 


py ey eT Ἐν EO TD τ ἱ ἱ Lift Ἤν OP μη ΠΝ Ww \ ΠΝ 
ΠΝ i mst iN 1 aii 
pith 2 ρον... 
Ads ΠΤ τ: ΠΝ ἢ, Peery παν} Te. ) werk tte Η͂ “ἢ : ἣν | 
side: uk-esnantlh ARE helee een 











{ 
j 
᾿ 
' 
‘ 
he} ᾿ 
᾿ ἍΜ ) 
i i 
Tet} { Ay 
j ( y ͵ 
1: Ale 4 
j ν᾿ ᾿ ἡ 
vi 
) 


The Stylistic Influence of the Second Sophistic 
On the Panegyrical Sermons of 
St. John Chrysostom 


A 
ΓΤ Y IN GREEK RHETORIC 


A DISSERTATION 


Submitted to the Faculty of Letters of the Catholic University 
of America in Partial Fulfilment of the 
Requirements for the Degree of 


DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 


ce oe LOY 
Rev. THOMAS E.. AMERINGER, O. F. M., M. A., 
OF THE PROVINCE OF ST. JOHN BAPTIST 
CINCINNATI, OHIO 


CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA 
WASHINGTON, D. C. 
1921 





τ νιονε University οἵ America, “Fel τὴ 
The Stylistic Influence of the Second Sophistic 


On the Panegyrical Sermons of 
St. John Chrysostom 


A 
ΠΥ IN GREEK RHETORIC 


A DISSERTATION 


Submitted to the Faculty of Letters of the Catholic University 
of America in Partial Fulfilment of the 
Requirements for the Degree of 


DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 


cP ey 4 
Rev. THOMAS E. AMERINGER, O. F. M., M. A., 
OF THE PROVINCE OF ST. JOHN BAPTIST 
CINCINNATI, OHIO 


CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA 
WASHINGTON, D. C. 
1921 





Nihil obstat, 
Leo Molengraft, O.F.M. 
Censor deputatus 


Imprimi permittitur, 
Edmundus Klein, O.F.M. 


Minister Provincialis 


Nihil obstat, 
P. L. Biermann 
Censor deputatus 


Imprimatur, 
Georgius Gulielmus Mundelein 
Archiepiscopus Chicagiensis 





TABLE OF CONTENTS 


PAGE 
το ΠΡ ΡΣ ΟΡ is thy see laphei.g.eteceboe on ois 7 
RN νος πα t ioik Wate se Lys eis Sa voce bare 9 

CHAPTER 

ΠΝ Or mecond Sophisties?. ke ee a 
II. Chrysostom’s Attitude Toward Sophistic Rhetoric.. 20 
BEMEIANGT SP IOULES Of SPEECH. τ ον ae ee ee ees 29 
IV. Symmetry of the Period:: The Gorgianic Figures.. 42 
MILT ATINOI Ns inmate yi foc We ον δον od wee νος 56 
MEIER OT PATISOM ιν vs se dais blew oe ees 68 

eR CODA SIS tt nn cae wc Mele cae eas 86 


(abe ROR ge UMNO ts MN SOS ea 101 










ἘΜ moe ἔλα. 
vive t Ἦν 
ΠΥ t/a a Pi 
. ἠ j Re i " ik ay ἶν 


ΩΝ i νῷ 
1 πο [ie . 
᾿ ᾿ i ιν — sa ae mA ΠΝ; Bas ky < 






MeN TB Alas ὴ ΠΣ bay Whee AY 
τἂν ἐὰ μεν ΣΤᾺ I uae ΠΝ ᾿ i ¥; ab iy wa uid 


LAL is 
? ὶ 


ρα eee iy 
https://archive. org/details/stylisticinfluen 


ny A Nery): ae 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Migne, Patrologia Graeca (vol. 47-64, on Chrysostom).—Cited thus: 49, 
170, 35 means: vol. 49, column 170, line 35. The English citations are 
taken as far as available from: 

The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. by 
Philipp Schaff, New York, 1894. 

Beran, Lie Beredsamkeit des hl. Johannes Chrysostomus, Wirz- 

urg, I 

Tak Εν St. Jean Chrysostome considéré comme orateur populaire, Paris, 
105 

Bardenhewer, O., Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, Bd. III, Frei- 
burg i. Breisgau, 1912. 

Baur, Dom. Chr., St. Jean Chrysostome et ses oeuvres dans Vhistoire lit- 
téraire, Louvain-Paris, 1907. 

Burgess, T., Epideictic Literature, Dissert., Chicago, 1902. 

Christ, W. v., Griechische Literaturgeschichte, Bd. VII, 2, 2, Miinchen, 1913. 

Colombo, S., 11 Dialogo Περὶ ἹἹερωσύνης di S. Giovanni Crisostomo e la 
Retorica, Didaskaleion I (1912), 173-200, Torino. 

Guignet, M., St. Grégoire de Naszianze et la rhétorique, Paris, 1911. 

Hatch, E., The Influence of Greek ideas and usages upon the Christian 
Church, London, 1801. 

Hermogenes, Περὶ ᾿Ἰδεῶν, ed. Spengel, Rhetores Graeci, vol. 11. 

Kaibel, G., Dionysius v. Halicarnassus und die Sophistik, Hermes XX 
(1885), 497-513. 

Libanius, Opera, ed. Foerster, Lipsiae, 1903. 

Lucian, Ῥητόρων Διδάσκαλος, ed. Jacobitz, Vol. III, Leipzig, 1913. 

Méeridier, L., L’/nfluence de la seconde sophistique sur loeuvre de Grégoire 
de Nysse, Thése, Paris, 1906. 

Naegele, A., Johannes Chrysostomos und sein Verhaltnis zum Hellenismus, 
Byzant. Zeitschrift, XIII (1904), 73-113. Chrysostomos und Libanios, 
Χρυσοστομικά T, Rome, 1908. 

Norden, E., Die Antike Kunstprosa, 2 Bd., Leipzig-Berlin, 1915. 

Polemo, Declamationes, ed. Hinck, Leipzig, 1873. 

Puech, A., St. Jean Chrysostome et les moeurs de son temps, Paris, 1891. 
St. Jean Chrysostome, Paris, 1900. 

Rohde, E., Die griechische Sophistik der Kaiserzeit, in Der griechische 
Roman und seine Vorlaufer, 310 ff., ed. 2, Leipzig, 1900. 

Schmid, W., Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertreter n, Stuttgart, 1887. 
Bericht iiber die Literatur aus den Jahren 1804- 1900 sur szweiten 
Sophistik, in Bursian’s Jahresberichte, XXIX (1901). Bericht tiber die 
Literatur aus den Jahren 1901-1904 zur sweiten Sophistik, in Bursian’s 
Jahresberichte, XXXIV (1906). 

Villemain, A. F., Nouveaux mélanges historiques et littéraires: De Vélo- 
quence chrétienne dans le quatriéme siecle, Paris, 1827. 

Volkmann, R., Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Rémer, Leipzig, 1885. 

Weissenbach, J., De Eloquentia Patrum, Libri XIII, Augustae Vindeli- 
corum, 1775. 

Wendland, P., Die hellenistisch-rémische Kultur in ihren Besiehungen zu 
Judentum und Christentum, Tubingen, 1912. 

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. v., Die Kultur der Gegenwart, Teil I, Abt. 
VIII, 213 ff., Berlin-Leipzig, 1907. 

7 


πα. 
θοὸν 













ἮΙ ᾽ 

bf ‘ 

\e ἵ Ν ὑ 
τὰ \ ; 

, j 
i 

mi 

i 
᾿ 4 
iy δι 
x 

My 
i 

4 
‘ 

y 

' 

ἡ 

ἢ 

' 

OE | ) bALy iy ΜΝ 
; Wi ae 
Ὁ] i] 1) a aah 

; ἐμ δ᾿ AE ai 4 4 } 
" ) Ay AMS 
e ’ 4 
νυ Af ite 
εἰ i 9 ᾿ 
- ' F ay ὡ 
LAM ay" “fh 
, ; y 
. / \ ' A 

Pref ὸ : vor 
ἢ j i} 1% 
ve) Ὶ ἫΝ ΠῚ, he 
ik: ' , Ἷ he 
wk i νιν, 

᾿ ἃ ᾿ cane Ph dal eas 

; i ΝΥ ὯΝ 
Ty J | i ἣν 

7 .™ Mel) i ἬΝ Ay 

τ , ΠΝ ig 

: i i ti ‘ ὌΝ ἐν aig 

‘aa q Me, A 
, Ἶ ᾿ ἫΝ ey uu 
» ἢ ors ; ) ὃ : a f f foi ᾿ 
Nah | Re ἢν; 

vy ; NTs ἌΝ! ᾿ % Al ata Pie Ve aan 

4 ἢ ΛΟ ἘΣ | ἤ ὯΝ 

: ie A ΟΣ ΜΕΥ" aan a a ie ian Hey ’ hy 
; ἢ 1 ' eu ae ᾿ rey i's 
ie ; Ι ᾿ ὶ 
[ / RAO Le fet f 5 j 
ἡ we My 7 aah ἘΠ ΔΝ Hat iy 
/ ἢ Le. i ᾿ Ἢ Ἵ ; ᾿ Fy ! ἵ 
i Ped ἶ ὶ | 
i cM 7 

Ι δ \ 

Ϊ ὶ 
; 
ee aU ) 
᾿ Ue | ' 

“ἢ , ἥ ane 
. ἤ ᾿ 


INTRODUCTION 


The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate the influ- 
ence of the Second Sophistic Rhetoric on St. John Chrysostom 
by studying in his sermons the chief figures of speech employed 
by the sophist rhetors, as well as the sophistic ecphrasis. From 
the vast bulk of Chrysostom’s sermons, about 450 in number, we 
have selected the Sermones Panegyrici seu in Solemnitates as 
most likely to show the sophistic influence. The epideictic dis- 
course was in fact the most favored by the rhetors, and allowed 
the fullest display of rhetorical resources. The panegyrical ser- 
mons comprise some of the most celebrated sermons of Chrysos- 
tom, vizg., the seven Panegyrics on St. Paul and the Festal Dis- 
courses. We have not, however, entirely neglected the other 
sermons, and have included in our study the first four Homilies 
on the Statues, the two On Eutropius, two On His Return from 
Exile, and one Against the Games and Theatres. 

An examination of the tendencies of profane rhetoric in the 
sermons of the greatest orator of the Eastern Church will, we 
hope, be a welcome contribution to one of the most interesting 
problems of today, the literary relations between Hellenism and 
Christianity. In regard to this question our study aims to con- 
tinue the investigations made by L. Meridier in his work: L’/nflu- 
ence de la seconde sophistique sur loeuvre de Grégoire de Nysse, 
as well as by M. Guignet: St. Gregoire de Nazianze et la Rhéto- 
rique. We have followed substantially the plan of these scholars, 
and have been guided by their methods in the handling of our 
subject. We have, however, confined our study to the strictly 
rhetorical influences as they appear in the tropes, figures of 
speech, and the ecphrasis of the above mentioned sermons, while 
their works embrace not only the study of the tropes and figures, 
but also the composition and the dialectics of the sermons and 
other writings of Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory Nazianzen. 

We have not attempted to trace in Chrysostom any close cor- 
respondences between his style and that of any particular sophist, 
e.g., Libanius. Both Méridier+ and Guignet* have pointed out 
the futility of such a plan. Our endeavor has been rather to find 


1 Avant-propos, VI. 
a Chea, 


10 


in Chrysostom the characteristics of the second sophistic in gen- 
eral. These characteristics are very thoroughly treated by Meéri- 
dier in the above-mentioned work.’ 


The subject of this dissertation was suggested by a reading 
of E. Norden’s work, Die Antike Kunstprosa, 11, 569 ff., where 
he briefly indicates the difference between Gregory Nazianzen’s 
style and that of Basil and Chrysostom: “Lange wohldisponierte 
Satze statt der kurzen zerhackten, und im allgemeinen sehr spar- 
same Verwendung der Redefiguren, nach denen man bei ihnen 
suchen muss, wahrend sie sich bei Gregor tberall aufdrangen.” 
Our eagerness to search after these evidences of the influence of 
profane rhetoric in Chrysostom was increased, when we learned 
that E. Norden was not alone in minimizing this influence. Thus 
L. Ackermann* makes the strange assertion that Chrysostom 
wrote in the style of St. Paul, and that he was free from the bad 
taste and the mannerisms of the sophists. Wilamowitz® states 
that there is no trace of the jingle of rhymes and cadences in 
Chrysostom’s larger orations. O. Bardenhewer® restricts the 
sophistic influence in Chrysostom to some individual sermons of 
his earlier period. If these statements were correct, we argued, 
then the sermons of Chrysostom presented a psychological phe- 
nomenon that was indeed remarkable. It seemed strange to us 
that Chrysostom should be detached to such an extent from the 
rhetoric in which he was trained from early youth, and which, 
prior to his ordination, claimed him as one of its ablest exponents. 
These considerations made us still more eager to take up this 
subject, and to determine in what measure these statements were 
justified. 


We have not included in our investigation the study of rhyth- 
mical clausulae in Chrysostom, because the question of prose 
rhythm is still a much-mooted one, and allows much room for 
subjective theorizing. Moreover, this subject is in itself large 
enough for a special monograph. 


The author wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness and to 
express his sincere gratitude to Dr. Roy Joseph Deferrari, Head 
of the Greek and Latin Departments at the Catholic University 
of America, under whose helpful and stimulating direction this 
monograph has been written. 

3 Ch. III, La Seconde Sophistique. 

4 Die Beredsamkeit des hl. Johannes Chrysostomus, 99. 


> Kultur der Gegenwart, Teil I, Abt. VIII, 214. 
ὃ Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, Bd. III, 353. 


(ΠΎΡΡΟΝ 


THE NEW OR SECOND SOPHISTIC 


We shall not attempt here anything like a complete sketch of 
the interesting period in Greek literature known as the New or 
Second Sophistic. We shall be content to point out only its gen- 
eral character and the rhetorical devices that shaped its style. 
The term signifies that renaissance of Greek Rhetoric which 
dominated Greek literature from the close of the first to the end 
of the fourth century aA.p. The movement had its rise in the 
rhetorical schools of Asia Minor, and in the reign of Hadrian it 
entered Athens. Its purpose was to bring about a revival of 
Greek oratory by a close imitation of the Attic masters of ex- 
pression, Demosthenes, Isocrates, Thucydides, Herodotus, Xeno- 
phon, and Plato.? But many sophists preferred the mannerisms 
of Gorgias and Hippias; for the pompous, ornate diction of the 
latter was better suited to their own style than the sober, prac- 
tical manner of the great orators and historians. For the same 
reason they probably copied the Asiatic orators; at least we find 
in many of the sophists the same faults which critics censure in 
Hegesias and the Asiatic school, vizg., short, mincing cola, an 
excessive use of tropes and figures, and an effeminate rhythm 
_closely approaching the metre of poetry. Unfortunately these 
rhetors of the New Sophistic were reckoned as peers of the an- 
cient masters or even as superior to them, and so came to be imi- 
tated as classics, whereas their works were at best only poor 
copies of the great originals.® 

As a consequence of the revival of oratory the study of 
rhetoric was regarded as the most essential element of higher 
education. All the great sophists were likewise teachers of rhet- 
oric. The youth of the better families all passed through their 
schools. They stood high in the public estimation. They were 


1For a full account of the Second Sophistic see E. Rohde, Die 
griechische Sophistik der Kaiserzeit, in Der griechische Roman und seine 
Vorlaufer, 310 ff.; also W. Schmid, Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptver- 
tretern, E. Norden, Die Anttke Kunstprosa; E. Hatch, The Influence of 
Greek ideas and usages upon the Christian Church, 86-115; L. Méridier, 
La Seconde Sophistique, in L’Influence de la seconde sophistique sur Poeuvre 
de Grégoire de Nysse, 7-47. 

2W. v. Christ, Griechische Literaturgeschichte, Band VII, 2, 2, 511. 

3 Rohde, 350. 

11 


12 


regarded as leaders and spokesmen of their respective commu- 
nities ; they discharged the highest municipal offices; they served 
as legates to the emperors and were honored with statues and 
laudatory decrees.* Occasionally they pleaded private causes in 
the law-courts, but this they regarded as a menial avocation and 
as beneath the dignity of an artist. 


What they claimed as their peculiar province was the oratory 
of pomp and show, the so-called epideictic speeches, in which art 
was displayed for art’s sake. These, like all the literary products 
of the Sophistic, were composed primarily with a view to public 
declamation. In speeches decked out with all the embellishments 
of rhetoric the sophist championed the interests of his province or 
city before the imperial magistrates. At the national games of 
Olympia and the other great contests panegyrical speeches formed 
an essential part of the program. At the solemn feasts of the 
gods the sophist was selected to voice the devout enthusiasm of 
his fellow-citizens.° The themes of the ordinary discourses were 
of a manifold character. Sometimes the sophist would deliver a 
well-prepared speech on a subject of forensic or deliberative 
oratory, but preferably on a theme taken from mythology or his- 
tory. Not infrequently he would marshal all the resources of his 
wit and ingenuity in the laudatory exposition of some lowly 
theme, such as the ancient sophists were wont to treat. 


However, the supreme test of an accomplished sophist con- 
sisted in discoursing without previous preparation on any subject 
selected by his audience. It was part of his art to force the choice 
of a subject, or so to develop it that he might bring in something 
which he had already prepared. ‘When your audience has chosen 
a subject for you,” says Lucian,® in his satirical advice to rhetori- 
cians, “go straight at it and say without hesitation whatever words 
come to your tongue, never minding about the first point coming 
first and the second second: the great thing is to go right on and 
not have any pauses. If you have to talk at Athens about adul- 
tery, bring in the customs of the Hindoos and Persians: above all, 
have passages about Marathon and Cynaegirus—that is indis- 
pensable. And Athos must always be turned into sea, and the 
Hellespont into dry land, and the sun must be darkened by the 
clouds of Median arrows ... . and Salamis and Artemisium and 
Plataea, and so forth, must come in pretty frequently ; and, above 

4 Rohde, 315 ff. 


5 Rohde, 326 ff. 
6 The Teacher of Rhetoric, 18. 


13 


all, those little Attic words I told you about must blossom on the 
surface of your speech—drra and Syrovfev—must be sprinkled 
about freely, whether they are wanted or not: for they are pretty 
words, even when they do not mean anything.” 7 


The skilled rhetor declaimed his well-balanced periods with a 
kind of musical cadence of the voice, which varied in pitch accord- 
ing to the sentiment of the passage. Sometimes he lapsed into a 
monotonous singsong, an abuse prevalent among the Asiatic 
orators. Ancient critics compare this musical delivery to the song 
of the nightingale or the music of the citharist. In point of facial 
expression and gestures some sophists exceeded all measure. Oc- 
casionally, like actors on the stage, they impersonated diverse 
characters, such as a murderer, a farmer, or a beggar.® 


The occasion on which the sophist made his appearance before 
the public was indeed one of triumph and glory for him, bringing 
a rich reward for all his labors. The entire population, from the 
mechanic to the highest official, thronged to these performances 
as to a dramatic spectacle. The audience was as a rule very appre- 
ciative and signified its approval by clapping, by loud cheers and 
cries of: “Bravo!” “Inspired!” “Wonderful!” ® This practice of 
loud applause prevailed even in the Christian churches of this 
period, as we shall see from Chrysostom’s sermons. The sophist 
felt it very keenly if the audience showed itself indifferent or slow 
to applaud. 


One of the chief defects of the New Sophistic was its unreal- 
ity. The sophists chose their subjects not from the living present, 
-but from the dead past; for they considered themes taken from 
the life of the times as trivial and commonplace. But whenever 
they deigned to treat such a topic, they did it in an idealistic 
fashion, surrounding it with the glamour of antiquity. Their 
favorite field was ancient history and mythology. The sophist 
had no real, personal, vital interest in his subject. It appealed to 
him solely in as far as it lent itself to rhetorical embellishment, 
and in this respect he gave full rein to his fancy, not caring for 
any deeper investigation of the nature and essence of things. 
This enabled him to speak with an annoying facility on any topic, 
and he could “make small things seem great and great things 
small.” The first essentials of true oratory were lacking— 
grandeur or importance of subject-matter, sincerity of disposition 

TTP. by EY Hatch; 95. 


8 Rohde, 336 ff. 
9E Hatch, 96. 


14 


in the orator, and genuineness of feeling. The ancient Greek 
orators discoursed on issues of public and personal interest. They 
identified these issues with their own and put their heart and 
soul into them. ‘The sophist selected fanciful themes with the 
sole purpose of entertaining or amusing his hearers with a pyro- 
technical display of rhetorical skill, wit, and ingenuity.” 

The rhetorical style of the sophists shows this same tendency, 
a constant straining after effect by a display of tropes and fig- 
ures.'‘t Hermogenes, defining false δεινότης, informs us that it is 
proper to the sophists (περὶ ἰδεῶν, 395). Among the figures which 
they employed to obtain this false δεινότης, he mentions the so- 
called σχήματα κεκαλλωπισμένα (1b., 332 ff.). These are the parison, 
the epanaphora, the antistrophe, the κλῖμαξ, the polyptoton, and 
the hyperbaton.”” 


Of these figures the chief ones are the epanaphora and the 
parison. The epanaphora is one of the most ordinary figures of 
the sophists’ style. They employ it with cola of moderate length 
to produce a sort of musical refrain and with short κόμματα with 
a view to nervous energy. Most often it is combined with asyn- 
deton, which makes it more emphatic. The epanaphora occurs 
frequently in the two declamations of Polemo. The same is 
true of the orations of Libanius,‘e.g., in Or. ΧΙ 
(Foerster) : τοιοῦτοι... . τοιαῦται . . . . 15 repeated seven times. 
In Himerius’ Ecl. II, 46, 6: gos . . . . is repeated four times. 


A very important group of figures are the Gorgianic Figures, 
the parison, the antithesis, and the homoioteleuton. They are par 
excellence the figures of artistic Greek prose, producing symme- 
try, parallelism, and musical cadence, which are among its greatest 
beauties. Their invention was attributed by the ancients to 
Gorgias. Be that as it may, it is certain that the abuse of these 
figures was one of the most glaring faults of his style. The 
sophists as a rule copied this bad example. We shall quote ex- 
amples of the parison, antithesis, and homoioteleuton from some 
of the leading sophists. 


The parison presents two or more successive cola having the 
same general structure, often with an exact correspondence be- 
tween the respective parts of the cola. Libanius, who employs 
this figure oftener than any other, has the following: Or. XIX, 
412, 61: 

10 Rohde, 347 ff. 


11 On this subject cf. Méridier, 20-47. 
12 All of these, except the parison, are treated in chapter III, p. 20. 


15 


καταλέλυνται μὲν αἱ περὶ τοὺς λόγους διατριβαί, 
καταλέλυνται δὲ αἱ περὶ τὰ γράμματα διδασκαλίαι. . .. 
νοσούντων μὲν ἡ χρόα, 
οὐκ ἐρρωμένων δὲ ἡ φωνή, 
πεπλανημένων δὲ ἡ γνώμη. . .. 

Himerius, in Ecl. II, 50, 11: 

᾿Απέστημεν ἑτέροις τῆς ἡγεμονίας, οὐκ ἀντεῖπες" 
παρεχωρῆσαμεν τοῦ πατρίου σχήματος, οὐκ ἠγανάκτησας. 

Themistius, Or. I, 11 d.: 

ἄδικος μὲν τῆς σπουδῆς, 
ἠλίθιος δὲ τῆς γνώμης, 
ἀνόητος δὲ τῆς ἐλπίδος. 

When the two cola of a parison express a contrast of ideas, we 
have the most artistic form of the parison—the antithesis. The 
sophists had a high regard for this figure and used it lavishly. 
The two declamations of Polemo teem with antitheses,'* in which 
Cynaegirus is contrasted with Callimachus. The Corinthiacus of 
Favorinus likewise abounds in antitheses, e.g., 15, 18: 

σοφὸς μὲν ἦν μετ᾽ ὀλίγων, 
τύραννος δὲ μετὰ πολλῶν. 
18, 22: 
τεθῆναι μὲν WS ἄριστος, 
ἐκπεσεῖν δ᾽ ὡς πονηρότατον. 
_ Libanius is prodigal in his use of the same figure, e.g., Or. 
ΝΕ, ἅγο, 308: 
ὦ μικρὸν μὲν τῆς γῆς μέρος κατέχων διὰ τοῦ τάφου, 
πᾶσαν δὲ τῷ θαύματι τὴν οἰκουμένην, 
ὦ νενικηκὼς μάχαις μὲν τοὺς ἀλλοφύλους, 
ἀμαχεὶ δὲ τοὺς ὁμοφύλους. 

Note how the symmetry of the last two cola is enhanced by the 

double paronomasia. 


The symmetry of cola reaches its highest perfection when the 
parison is combined with the homoioteleuton, which is produced 
by the recurrence of the same final syllables at the end of suc- 
cessive cola. This musical and poetical element of style holds an 
important place in sophistic literature. It was one of the chief 
means employed by the sophists to give a poetical character to 
their prose. We cite a few instances from Dion Chrysostom and 
Libanius : 


13 Schmid, I, 63. 


16 


Dion Chrysostom, Or. 75, 204: 
ὁ τὰς πανηγύρεις συνάγων, 
ὁ τοὺς θεοὺς τιμῶν, 
ὁ τὴν ἀρετὴν αὔξων. 
Τα ΔΙ ΕΘ sis 
ἢ στρατιὰν ἐξέταξεν 
ἢ χώραν ἡμέρωσεν, 
ἢ πόλιν ὦκισεν, 
ἢ ποταμοὺς ἔζευξεν, 
ἢ γῆν ὁδεύτην ἐποίησεν. 
1 θπηιπ5, ΣΙ eosin: 
καὶ λόγῳ χρησομένην 
καὶ ἔργῳ δεησομένην. 
ΤΟ ΔΒ να: 
τούς τε παιδεύεσθαι βουλομένους 


4 / A 
TOUS TE παιδεύειν δυναμένους. 


Among the figures of which the sophists were very fond we 
must mention paronomasia and alliteration. Paronomasia is a 
play on words which are similar in sound but dissimilar in sense. 
Its various forms may be grouped under two heads, 

1) Words having the same root: 

a) With changes and additions of prefixes: 

Dion Chrysostom, I, 228, 2: ἀντίτεχνοι καὶ ὁμότεχνοι; Aristides, 
VII, 75, 78: προγόνων τε καὶ ἐκγόνων. 

b) With changes of case, voice, mood, tense, etc. : 

Lucian, Conv. 432: παίων καὶ παιόμενος ; id., Bis. acc. 815: 

ἐλευθέρους ἐλευθέρως φιλοσοφεῖν. 

2) Words having different roots: 

Polemo, Declam. B, 20,.15: σῶμα... σῆμα o/. 5 ae 
10: φόνον καὶ φόβον ; Dion Chrysostom, I, 189, 32: λοιμός τε καὶ λιμός 
(Thucydides, II, 54, 2); Aristides, III, 30, 5253: ἀνηχῦ 
ἀνηφθω. 

Alliteration signifies the recurrence of the same initial letter 
or letters in words generally succeeding immediately, e.g.: 
Philostratus, Vit. Soph. 39, 20: διαφαίνονται τοῦ λόγου Kat λαμπρότητες 
Anyovoat; Achilles Tatius, VII, 11, 7: 6 τῶν ληστῶν λόχος λανθάνων. 

In his treatise περὶ ἰδεῶν (292, 19 ff.) Hermogenes also remarks 
that the immoderate use of tropes was one of the faults of the 
ὑπόξυλοι σοφισταί (pseudo-sophists). A careful reading of the 
sophists will show that they all more or less merit this term of 
reproach. Among the tropes the metaphor takes first rank. It 


17 


signifies the transfer of a word from its literal to a figurative 
sense. 


The two declamations of Polemo are remarkable for an abun- 
dance of metaphors of bad taste.1* For instance, the hands of 
Cynaegirus, which had been cut off in the battle of Marathon, are 
styled (13, 36): “The divine torches that bore the light of lib- 
erty.” The same criticism applies to Aristides, with this differ- 
ence, that his lack of originality betrays itself in his dry repetition 
of the traditional metaphors of the schools.*® The discourses of 
Himerius show an abundance of metaphors which are, as a rule, 
very artificial and of a labored ingenuity. In contrast with these 
sophists, Themistius and Libanius are less bold in their metaphors. 
The criticism which Schmid makes of Aristides applies also to 
them, viz., their images are trite. Libanius borrows them prefer- 
ably from the athletic games. Thus, in Or. XVIII, 360, 283, he 
calls the deceased emperor Julian “an athlete who was on the point 
of receiving the crown.” 


The comparison bears a close relation to the metaphor. In 
the metaphor the resemblance between two objects is implied; in 
the comparison it is formally stated. This sparkling ornament of 
style appealed strongly to the taste of the sophists. Schmid has 
counted 397 instances of the comparison in the 80 orations of Dion 
Chrysostom.'® They are in general taken from everyday life, 
preferably from medicine. The same critic has noted in the two 
-declamations of Polemo twelve comparisons which are remark- 
able for their bad taste.’7 Here is one that is particularly bold and 
extravagant—Callimachus is represented as defying the whole 
army of the Persians: “Though blows and arrows shower down 
upon me thick and fast, yet I speak as if I were being crowned 
with flowers.” 5. The comparisons of Aristides, like his meta- 
phors, lack originality.1° The comparisons of Himerius are as 
numerous as his metaphors and exhibit a tendency to prettiness 
and subtlety. They are generally a pretext for the introduction 
of brilliant and prolonged images, giving to his writings the poet- 
ical color at which he aims. They are drawn mostly from the 
beauties of nature and from works of art. In Or. XII, 584, par. 
2 and 3, he compares the orator successively to an artisan, a 

14 Schmid, I, 61. 

15 Schmid, IT, 263. 

18 Atticismus I, 160. 

aT De Oty ΠῚ 


18 Declam. B, 35, 15. 
19 Schmid, IT, 263. 


18 


painter, a sculptor, a flute-player, and a pilot. This last image was 
a great favorite with the sophists. While the comparisons of 
Himerius reflect the taste and the pretensions of an artist, those of 
Themistius are chiefly of a philosophical nature. He is fond of 
representing himself as a physician. Other comparisons are bor- 
rowed from the athletic games, the chariot-races, and navigation. 

The comparisons of Libanius are of the conventional kind. 
In his monody on Julian ?° he takes one from the palaestra, an- 
other one from medicine.** 

The hyperbole is another trope much in vogue with the 
sophists. It consists in magnifying an object beyond its just pro- 
portions. The sophist orators often employed it to give to topics 
which were trivial or commonplace an air of grandeur and im- 
portance. Hermogenes, who otherwise is a critic of good judg- 
ment, does not scruple to affirm that one may at times employ a 
grand style in setting forth subjects in themselves simple and of 
small account.?? Acting on this principle the sophists violated all 
the canons of good taste. Polemo is one of the worst offenders 
in this respect. His two declamations contain a considerable 
number of gross exaggerations, e.g., he states that “Callimachus 
withstood a shower of missiles of every kind, until he had ex- 
hausted all the arrows of Asia and fatigued the grand army of 
the king,” “5. and again “that Cynaegirus proved that the Athenians 
alone of all men were endowed with immortal hands.” **+ The 
glorious struggles of the Persian wars were a fruitful theme of 
extravagant hyperboles. Thus Aristides in his Panathenaicus* 
assures us “that the rivers of blood would have sufficed to keep 
the ships afloat.” In like manner Himerius, commenting on the 
vast number of Persian troops,”® states “that no stream would 
have sufficed to quench their thirst.” His monody on his son 
Rufinus is a long series of hyperboles exhibiting the false pathos 
so characteristic of the sophists. In Or. XXIII, 772, 4, he apos- 
trophizes his son thus: “Thy first accents were those of a chief of 
the people; thy cries yet indistinct held in suspense the whole 
world. Thou wast an orator in thy swaddling-clothes.” 

The oxymoron, or paradox, is another trope which was dear 
to the sophists. It denotes the combination of two terms appar- 

oO OF eV ΤΙ ΚΑΤ 51: 

at LU 251 50] 

22 περὶ ἰδεῶν, 306, 5. 

23 Declam. B, 19, 21. 

#4 ΤΡ A, 12, Ὁ: 


25 Or. XIII, 203. 
26 Or. II, 408, 24. 


19 


ently contradictory, but which, viewed in the light of the context, 
are not incompatible. The oxymoron was well suited to the 
description of paradoxical and unusual situations in which the 
sophists loved to revel. The declamations of Polemo furnish sev- 
eral examples of traditional oxymora; e.g., he says of Cynaegirus, 
who from the shore attacked a Persian vessel : ἐναυμάχησεν ἐκ γῆς." 
In his second declamation (18, 1) he describes the corpse of 
Callimachus, which remained in a standing posture though cov- 
ered with wounds and pierced with countless arrows, as: νεκρὸν 
θανάτου κρείττονα, and he reverts to the same subject later (32, 14) 
saying: νῦν πρῶτον ἀθάνατος ὥφθη νεκρός. Schmid?** has noted 44 
instances of the oxymoron in Aristides and calls special attention 
to one which, like Polemo’s ἐναυμάχησεν ἐκ γῆς, is borrowed from 
the Panegiricus of Isocrates, 89: XIII, 259, 276: ναυμαχίας τε ἀπὸ 


~ / 
γῆς . . .. ἐν TH νῆσῳ γενομένας. 


The ecphrasis, though neither a trope nor a figure, deserves a 
place here, because it plays a prominent role in sophistic literature. 
It is a graphic and vivid description, minutely detailed, in which 
the sophists sought to rival the glowing descriptions of the poets. 
It afforded them a fine opportunity for the display of the most 
delicate arts of expression. With this object in view they freely 
borrowed poetical words as well as poetical themes.*? The ecphra- 
sis is found more frequently in the Asiatic sophists who copied 
‘the poets than in the Atticising rhetors who emulated the classic 
orators. It is rare in Themistius and is restricted to the function 
of a Τόπος in the monodies or of a rhetorical exercise in the 
progymnasmata of Libanius. But Himerius, who interlards his 
compositions with reminiscences from Alcaeus, Sappho, and 
Anacreon, is very lavish in its employment. 


Such are in brief the broad features and tendencies as well 
as the stylistic peculiarities of the Second Sophistic. The rhe- 
torical devices which modify its style are not new nor are they 
restricted to the sophist orators; it is rather in their abuse that 
the sophistic manner reveals itself. The most striking feature of 
this rhetoric is its artificiality. Art was displayed for art’s sake, 
instead of serving as a vehicle of ideas. It will be interesting to 
see in what measure this type of eloquence has influenced the 
rhetorical style of St. John Chrysostom. 

27 Declam. A, 5, 23. 


28 Atticismus, 281 ff. 
29 Qn the favorite themes of the ecphrasis see p. 86. 


CHAE DR iL 


CHRYSOSTOM’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS SOPHISTIC RHETORIC 


Before we examine the actual traces of rhetorical influence in 
the sermons of Chrysostom, it is pertinent to inquire into his 
theoretical attitude toward pagan culture and literature in general. 
Strangely enough, this question, which has a vital bearing on one 
of the most interesting problems of history, the relation of Hel- 
lenism to Christianity, has been sadly neglected until recent years. 
Without making any deeper investigations in the vast bulk of his 
sermons, historians and literary critics from E. Gibbon down to 
10. Norden have reiterated the charge that this prince of Christian 
orators was either profoundly indifferent or irreconcilably hostile 
to pagan culture and literature. The former? attributes to him 
the faculty “of prudently hiding the advantages which he owed 
to rhetoric and philosophy.” | 

The scholar who first exposed the falsity of this traditional 
view was A. Naegele.? He rendered an invaluable service to 
scholarship by proving conclusively from Chrysostom’s own 
statements that he deserves a place beside Origen, Basil, Augus- 
tine, and others who advocated a compromise between Hellenism 
and Christianity. 


For all practical purposes such a compromise was an estab- 
lished fact by the middle of the fourth century. The Christian 
Fathers of this period were all thoroughly imbued with classic 
culture and gave evidence of it in their writings. Theoretically, 
however, opinions were divided as to whether or not Christian 
thought should be set forth in the polished language of the pagan 
classics.2 Some of the Fathers, like Augustine* and Gregory 
Nazianzen, wavered in their attitude.» Some of Gregory’s bitter 
invectives against pagan writers and rhetors give the impression 
that he is altogether hostile to profane literature, while other of 

1 History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. by W. 
Smith, N. Y., ITI, 468. 

2 Johannes Chrysostomos und sein Verhiltnis sum. Hellenismus, 
Byzant. Zeitschrift XIII (1904), 73-113. 

8 Norden, Die Antike Kunstprosa II, 520. 

£ ID S17. 

> Guignet, St. Grégoire de Nazianze et la Rhétorique, 44 ff. 

20 


21 


his statements show him in favor of enlisting its formal beauty in 
the exposition of Christian doctrine. 

Now, Chrysostom’s attitude is similar. In the heat of battle 
he sometimes allows his zeal to carry him too far, to censure not 
only the errors and vices of paganism, but profane writers and 
literature in general. This has led critics like Norden to pro- 
nounce him “the most bitter foe of paganism in the fourth cen- 
tury.”® A deeper and more sympathetic study of his sermons 
would have revealed the fact that, though he is unsparing in his 
condemnation of pagan error and immorality, he is at heart not 
hostile to the refining and cultural influences of antiquity. We 
shall briefly review the more important passages in Chrysostom 
which bear out this conclusion.‘ 


In Book 1118 of his treatise Against the Enemies of Monasti- 
cism he emphasizes the duty of parents to send their children to 
Christian schools, where their morals and religious training are 
safeguarded, rather than to pagan schools, where they “learn vice 
before letters.” And, to prevent any misunderstanding, he ex- 
claims: “‘What then?’ some one will say, ‘Shall we abolish all 
our schools?’ By no means do I say this, but we should not 
destroy the edifice of virtue nor bury the soul alive.” He then 
proves at length that the acquisition of virtue is more important 
than the pursuit of eloquence. In confirmation of this he cites 
the philosophers Anacharsis, Crates, Diogenes, and Socrates who 
made no account of letters but applied themselves exclusively to 
the study of moral philosophy. The opening of Socrates’ Apology 
is then quoted, where he says to the judges: “But you shall hear 
from me nothing but the truth. Not ... . speeches finely decked 
out with words and phrases,.... nor carefully arranged 

.” Chrysostom then remarks that the apostles, who were 
unlettered, converted the whole world, whereas the eloquent phi- 
losophers could not win over even a single tyrant. Then he adds 
the caution: “But let no one think I am laying down the rule that 
youths should not be instructed (in profane learning). How- 
ever, if anyone gives me a guarantee regarding the necessary 
things (i.e., virtue), I would not oppose this being given in the 
bargain. For, as, when the very foundations of a house are 
rocking and the whole structure is in danger of falling into ruins, 
it would be the utmost folly and madness to run to the plasterers 

6 Fl. Jahrb. f. cl. Phil. Suppl. XIX (1893), 397. 


7On this general subject cf. A. Naegele. 
847307) f- 


22 


and not to the builders: so it were unseasonable pertinacity, when 
the walls of a building stand firm and unshaken, to hinder him 
who would plaster it.” 

This agrees perfectly with the principles of Christian peda- 
gogy which insists that moral discipline must ever be the founda- 
tion of intellectual training. Far from rejecting the study of 
letters, Chrysostom holds it to be a necessary complement of a 
perfect education. His quotation of the Apology shows him 
taking the same position toward eloquence which Plato assumed 
when, as here and in his Gorgias,® he attacks rhetoric in the name 
of truth. Such attacks are aimed not at sane rhetoric, but at its 
abuse by the sophists. 


It is against the neglect of religious education and the mate- 
rialistic principles of paganism that Chrysostom again warns 
Christian parents in Hom. XXI, 2, on Ephes.:*° “Let everything 
be secondary with us to the provident care we should take of our 
children, and to our bringing them up in the chastening and admo- 
ΠΝ αὐ Το τῆν ἀν Ὁ} εἰς MBietgebicc αν You will effect nothing so great by 
teaching him an art, and giving him that outward learning by 
which he will gain riches, as if you teach him the art of despising 
RICHES sey. Study not to make him an orator, but train him up 
to be a philosopher (7. e., in the Christian sense). In the want of 
the one there will be no harm whatever; in the absence of the 
other, all the rhetoric in the world will be of no advantage. 
Tempers are wanted, not talking ; character, not cleverness ; deeds, 
NOnMVOrdS.. a Whet not his tongue, but cleanse his soul.” 
And, as if to forestall all criticism, both contemporaneous and 
modern, he adds: “I do not say this to prevent your teaching him 
these things, but to prevent your attending to them exclusively.” 
It is plain from these words that Chrysostom does not condemn 
classic culture, but the baneful products of paganism, an excessive 
love of wealth, and indifference to the higher interests of man. 

Although he cautions parents against the dangerous effects of 
heathen mythology on the tender minds of the young," yet he does 
not hesitate to introduce into his sermons: reminiscences from 
classic literature, poets, dramatists, philosophers etc. in the shape 
of comparisons or in confirmation of the truths of Christianity, 
e.g.: “For God has so implanted that idea (1. e., of hell) within us, 
that no one can ever be ignorant of it. For poets, and philoso- 

9 482 a-b, 502 6. 


1062, 150 ff. 
11 Hom. XXI, 1, on Ephes.; 62, 150. 


23 


phers, and fabulists, and in short all men, have philosophized con- 
cerning the retribution that is there, and have said that the greater 
number are punished in Hades. And if those things are fables, 
yet what we have received is not such.” 12 


He defends St. Paul for observing the same policy in quoting 
Epimenides,** Aratus, and the inscription of the altar at Athens 
in his speech before the Areopagus:'* “And as to the question, 
why does he cite the testimonies of the Greeks? It is because we 
put them most to confusion, when we bring our testimonies and 
accusations from their own writers, when we make those their 
accusers who are admired among themselves. ... . Thus does 
God too, as in the case of the Wise Men. He does not conduct 
them by an Angel, nor a Prophet, nor an Apostle, nor an Evan- 
gelist, but how? By a star. For, as their art made them con- 
versant with these, He made use of such means to guide them. 
See thus He everywhere condescends.’”* 


On one occasion he deemed it necessary to vindicate his own 
position toward Hellenism, as appears from the following: “Let 
no one think it an insult to Christ, if, when speaking of Him, we 
make mention of Pythagoras and Plato, Zeno and the Tyanean ; 
for we do it not of our own inclination, but to accommodate our- 
selves to the weakness of the Jews.’ *® Then he appeals to the 
example of St. Paul and to God’s manner of dealing with the 
Jews. 


And who is not surprised to hear this stern interpreter of Holy 
Writ voice his appreciation of the charm of Greek myths: “How 
many stories have ofttimes been woven on these subjects (ϑλίψεις 
καὶ ταλαιπωρίαι Of ancient rulers)! For nearly all the tragedies of 
the stage, as well as the mythical stories, have kings for their 
subjects. For most of these stories are formed from true inci- 
dents, for it is thus they please. As, for example, Thyestes’ 
banquet, and the destruction of all that family by their misfor- 
tunes. These things we know from the writers that are without 
(pagan historians) : but if you will, I will adduce instances from 
the Scripture too.” 1” 


Chrysostom often presupposes in his hearers an intimate ac- 
quaintance with classic literature, as in the largely mythological 


12 Hom. IX, 5, on Thessal.; 62, 446. 

18 ΤΊ, 1, 12. 

14 Acts XVII, 28 and 23. 

15 Tom. III, 1 and 2 on Tit.; 62, 677 and 678. 
16 Hom. agst. the Jews V, 3; 48, 886 

17 Hom. XV, 5 on Philipp.; 62, 206. 


24 


fourth chapter of his Hom. V on Titus,'* and he compliments the 
widow of Therasius on her familiar knowledge of examples in 
literature and history of men who despised riches: “And you have 
no need to learn from me, who these men were, for you know 
them better than I do, Epaminondas, Socrates, Aristides, 
Diogenes, Crates etc.’ τον 

Once he even recommends to his audience the study of the 
classic poets, philosophers, rhetoricians, and historians, in order to 
gather lessons of practical wisdom: “Read, if you will, both our 
own (books) and those without (i.e., pagan writers): for they 
also abound in such examples. If you despise ours, and this from 
pride; if you admire the works of philosophers, go even to them. 
They will instruct you relating ancient calamities, as will poets, 
and orators, and sophists, and all historians. On every side, if 
you will, you may find examples.” *° 

These unmistakable declarations of the Golden-mouthed 
Orator should dispel finally and definitely the false notion of his 
hostility to profane literature. In the light of the proofs we have 
here briefly sketched, the statement of Puech appears altogether 
unwarranted: “On ne trouverait pas chez ce Pere, le plus éloquent 
des Peres, un mot en faveur des lettres.” *t In fairness to Chrys- 
ostom we must admit that he was large-minded enough to appre- 
ciate what was good in pagan culture and that, in quitting the 
forum for the pulpit, and the study of literature for that of Holy 
Scripture, he did not repudiate his former ideals, but elevated, 
purified, and ennobled them. It has been well said of him: 
“Chrysostome est le plus beau génie de la société nouvelle, enté 
sur l’ancien monde, il est par excellence le Grec devenu chrétien.” ** 

But there was a particular phase of Greek culture in regard to 
which Chrysostom was plainly hostile, and that was the Sophistic 
Rhetoric. We have seen how he emphasized the importance of 
virtue and truth before eloquence, how he admonished parents to 
train their children in the fear of God rather than to make them 
skilled orators. To the sophists, however, virtue and truth were 
negligible considerations. All their efforts were bent on a display 
of rhetorical and dialectical virtuosity. Hence Chrysostom’s 
bitter attacks against them. He frequently glories in the fact 
that St. Paul and the other Apostles were ignorant of the “tricks” 

18 62, 692-604. 

19 To a Young Widow, 6; 48, 607. 

20 Hom. 1 on Thess. I1; 62, 472. 


21 St. Jean Chrysostome et les moeurs de son temps, Paris (1891), 124. 
22 Villemain, De l’éloquence chrétienne dans le quatriéme siécle, 391. 


25 


οἱ rhetoric,** and that they were free from the craftiness and 
verbosity of the rhetors, e.g.:** “Thus the expression, ‘I deter- 
mined to know nothing,’ was spoken in contradistinction to the 
wisdom which is without, ‘For I came not weaving syllogisms 
nor sophisms, nor saying unto you anything else than, Christ was 
crucified.’ They indeed have ten thousand things to say, and con- 
cerning ten thousand things they speak, winding out long courses 
of words, framing arguments and syllogisms, compounding 
sophisms without end.” Again:°°. “The pagan philosophers, 
rhetors, and writers, seeking not what is conducive to the common 
good, but having in view only that they might be admired, even 
when they said something useful, veiled it in their usual obscurity. 
Not so the apostles and prophets.” 

Chrysostom knew from personal experience the shallowness 
and artificiality of sophistic rhetoric. He had passed through the 
school of the most accomplished sophist of his day, Libanius. He 
had for some time pleaded at the bar with distinction, but had 
turned away with disgust from the chicanery and sham of the 
sophistic profession. To see this brand of eloquence introduced 
into the churches roused his indignation, which is expressed in 
the following sarcastic invective : *® 

“Many take a deal of pains to be able to stand up in public and 
make a long speech: and if they get applause from the multitude, 
they feel as if they gained the very kingdom (of heaven) : but if 
silence follows the close of their speech, it is worse than hell itself, 
the dejection that falls upon their spirits from the silence! This 
has turned the Churches upside down, because you do not desire 
to hear a discourse calculated to lead you to compunction, but one 
that may delight you from the sound and composition of the 
words, as though you were listening to singers and minstrels 
(κιθαρῳδῶν καὶ κιθαριστῶν) : and we too act a preposterous and piti- 
able part in being led by your lusts, when we ought to root them 
out. And so it is just as if the father of a poor, cold-blooded child 
(already more delicate than it ought to be) should, although it 1s 
so feeble, give it cake and cold (drink), and whatever merely 
pleases the child, and take no account of what might do it good; 
and then, being reproved by the physician, should excuse himself 
by saying, ‘What can I do? I cannot bear to see the child crying.’ 
Thou poor, wretched creature, thou betrayer! for I cannot call 

23 On the Priesthood, IV, 6; 48, 669; Hom. XIII on Acts; 60, 107. 

24 Flom. VI on I Cor. Il, 2; 61, 48. 


25 Serm. III, 3 on Lazarus; 48, 904. 
26 Hom. XXX on Acts XIII, 2; 60, 225. 


26 


ΘΠ ἢ Τ᾿ ΟΠ Θ᾽ Δ ἐα Ποῖ ys pa Just such is our case, when we vainly 
busy ourselves about beautiful expressions, and the composition 
and harmony of our sentences, in order that we may please, not 
profit: (when) we make it our aim to be admired, not to instruct ; 
to delight, not prick to the heart ; to be applauded and depart with 
praise, not to correct men’s manners!” He then dwells on the 
evil effect of applause on both preacher and people, and suggests 
that a rule be established forbidding it. But his protests were of 
no avail.?” Even while he pleaded he was interrupted by applause.”® 
But Chrysostom persisted, adding that if they would heed his 
advice, it would greatly benefit them and himself: “So shall we 
lay the whole stress of our time and diligence not upon arts of 
composition and beauties of expression, but upon the matter and 
meaning of the thoughts.” Matters had come to such a pass that 
even the pagans reproached the Christians for their love of dis- 
play, as we read in the same sermon: ?® “On this account are we 
evil spoken of even among the Gentiles, as though we did all for 
display and ostentation.” | 

As a young deacon he had already realized the danger to the 
preacher from the depraved taste of the public, who attended 
sermons as if they were dramatic or musical spectacles, when he 
wrote: *° “For the public are accustomed to listen not for profit, 
but for pleasure, sitting like critics of tragedies, and of musical 
entertainments, and that facility of speech against which we de- 
claimed just now, in this case becomes desirable, even more than 
in the case of barristers (σοφισταῖς), where they are obliged to 
contend one against the other.” To “correct this disorderly and 
unprofitable pleasure on the part of the multitude,” he suggests 
two remedies: “indifference to their praise and the power of 
preaching well.” 

Chrysostom‘s conduct towards his former teacher Libanius is 
typical of his attitude regarding the entire profession of sophists.** 
He never mentions him by name and refers to him in general 


27 Cf. also 48, 1045, 21; 49, 38, 33; 54, 472, 58. 

28 70. 226, 36. 

29 70. 228, 8. 

80 On the Priesthood, 48, 675, 7. 

81 Neither the anecdote related by Sozomenes (Hist. Eccl. VIII, 2) 
to the effect that Libanius, when asked on his deathbed whom he consid- 
ered worthy to succeed him, replied: “John, if the Christians had not 
stolen him,” nor the letter of Libanius addressed to a certain John, in 
which he praises him for a panegyric on the emperor (cited by Isidore of 
Pelusium, Ep. II, 42, and wrongly referred to John Chrysostom), can be 
regarded as proving any relations of Chrysostom with Libanius. Cf. W. v. 
Christ, Griechische Literaturgeschichte, VII, 2, 2, 1218, note 1—We have 
no proof of relations of Chrysostom with any other sophist. 


27 


terms (“my sophist” or, “the sophist of the city”) in only two of 
his writings. Once in his letter To a Young Widow,**? where he 
records the sophist’s tribute to his mother Anthusa, and again, at 
greater length, in his Book on St. Babylas against Julian and the 
Gentiles.*® Here he refutes and with strong sarcasm ridicules 
Libanius’ monody on the grove of Daphne and the temple of 
Apollo at Antioch, both of which had been destroyed by fire. 
Quoting passages of the monody, he brands its author as a θρηνῳδός 
(howler), Anpocodos (babbler),** and μιαρός (blackguard),*° and 
compares him to a tragic actor and a madman.** These scornful 
epithets certainly do not argue much esteem for his old teacher, 
nor for the profession which reckoned him its most illustrious 
member. They can be partly explained by Chrysostom’s abhor- 
rence for all pagan worship, of which the sophists were the official 
champions and defenders. They are generally placed in the same 
category with other enemies of the faith, tyrants, kings, philoso- 
Dnere δίς. 


That Chrysostom was not opposed to a sane and moderate use 
of rhetoric, and that he required rhetorical ability in the preacher, 
we infer from several passages of his treatise On the Priesthood, 
e.g.: “Wherefore it should be our ambition that the word of 
Christ dwell in us abundantly (Coll. III, 16)..... This war- 
fare is manifold, and is engaged with a great variety of enemies, 

. and he who has to join battle with all must needs know 
the artifices of all, and be at once both archer and slinger, captain 
and general, in the ranks and in command, on foot and on horse- 
back, in sea-fight and in siege.” "ὃ 


He demands *° that even a preacher of great ability must main- 
tain a high standard by constant application and exercise, and 
gives as a reason: “The efforts of the former, unless they be espe- 
cially wonderful and startling, not only fail to win applause, but 
meet with many faultfinders.” In one of his sermons *° he even 
remarks that, in order to relieve the strain on the audience, “one 
should speak at one time more in the style of debate, at another 
in a more panegyrical style.” Now, the latter was the showy 

82 48, 601. 

88 so, 560-566. 

34 50, 561. 

35 [ 562. 

36 70. 563. 

37 48, 831; 50, 536. 

38 48, 666, 17. 


39 Tb. 48, 674. 
40 On Psalm 41; 55, 155. 


28 


style of the eulogy and the sophists especially aimed to excel in 
it; from which we gather that Chrysostom considered a moderate 
display of rhetoric as legitimate in preaching. In another ser- 
mon *! he justifies the use of figures of speech: “When we have 
the care of the sick, we must not set before them a meal prepared 
at haphazard, but a variety of dishes, so that the patient may 
choose what suits his taste. Thus we should proceed in the 
spiritual repasts. Since we are weak, the sermon must be varied 
and embellished; it must contain comparison, proofs, para- 
phrases, and the like, so that we may select what will profit our 
soul,” 


Summing up the results of this chapter, we must conclude that 
Chrysostom was not a narrow-minded foe of Hellenism, as some 
critics would have us believe ; that he was alive to the refining and 
cultural forces of pagan literature, and that he favored the en- 
listment of profane rhetoric in the exposition of Christian truth. 
To overstep the limits of utility or necessity, and to make rhetoric 
an end instead of a means to an end, as the sophist rhetors did, 
such a policy ran counter to his high conception of the office of a 
Christian orator. So much for his theory. We shall now inves- 
tigate the practical application of this theory. 

41 On the Obscurity of the Prophecies, 56, 165. 


CHAPTER III 
MINOR FIGURES OF SPEECH 


In taking up the study of St. Chrysostom’s style, we shall not 
regard it from the more elementary viewpoint of syntax or 
vocabulary. We shall treat here only his rhetorical style through 
a study of the chief figures of speech that modify it. 

The rhetoricians, since Aristotle,’ distinguished two kinds of 
style, the λέξις εἰρομένη, the paratactical, or disjointed style, in 
which the short cola or κόμματα of a period were detached, and 
the λέξις κατεστραμμένη, the jointed style of long rolling periods, in 
which the cola were closely joined together forming an organic 
whole. Some sophists employed either style in accordance with 
the exigencies of the subject they were treating. Thus Gregory 
Nazianzen, while proficient in both styles, inclines more to the 
choppy style favored by the Asiatic rhetors,? which led Usener? to 
speak of “Der rasche Tanz asianischer Kola” in one of his ser- 
mons. Chrysostom, like his teacher Libanius, shows a preference 
for the periodic style. 

Parallelism of form is the most striking feature of both styles 
and of artistic Greek prose in general. It requires that each word, 
each colon, bear a relation in sound, position, or structure to a 
corresponding word or colon of the same or the following period. 
Hence that fine balance and symmetry in words, cola, and periods 
which the Greeks regarded as the greatest charm of their lan- 
guage. To produce this parallelism they employed the so-called 
Γοργίεια σχήματα. Before we discuss these in particular, we must 
consider a group of accessory devices used by the rhetors to em- 
bellish their style. These are: pleonasm, arsis, epanaphora, 
antistrophe, symploke, κύκλος, κλῖμαξ, hyperbaton, alliteration, 
paronomasia, oxymoron, and hyperbole. 

One of the most rudimentary of these devices is pleonasm, 
caused by placing two or several synonymous words or phrases 
side by side, which adds ample dignity and splendor to expres- 
sion. Chrysostom, whose style is of an Oriental exuberance, uses 
pairs of synonyms so frequently, that we quote only more re- 

1 Book 3 of his Rhetoric. 


2 Norden, Die Antike Kunstprosa II, 566. 
3 Religionsgeschichtl. Untersuchungen I, Bonn (1889), 253. 


29 


30 


markable examples; 49, 41, 39: πολέμιός ἐστιν ὁμόσκηνος, ἐχϑρὸς 
σύνοικος. Both adjectives and nouns form a pair of synonyms. 
49, 33, 40: Τί εἴπω καὶ τί λαλῆσω ; δακρύων ὁ παρὼν καιρὸς, οὐχὶ ῥημάτων" 
θρήνων, οὐχὶ λόγων εὐχῆς, οὐ δημηγορίας. This is a remarkable ex- 
ample of redundance. The idea of speech is expressed five times, 
that of grief twice. Note the threefold arsis, positive—negative. 
49, 34, 59: μόλις ἰσχύω διᾶραι στόμα, καὶ ἀνοῖξαι χείλη, καὶ κινῆσαι 
γλῶτταν, καὶ ῥήματα προέσθαι. The idea of speech is expressed four 
times. 40, 34, 48: δῆμος εὔτακτος οὕτω Kal ἥμερος, Kal καθάπερ ἵππος 
χειροηθης καὶ τιθασσὸς, ἀεὶ ταῖς τῶν ἀρχόντων εἴκων χερσίν. We have 
here five variations of the same idea. 50, 461, 38: στρατόπεδα 
ἐπαγόμενος, ἀγγέλων τάγματα, ἀρχαγγέλων συμμορίας, μαρτύρων φρατρίας, 
δικαίων χορούς. A very striking instance is, 50, 580, 22, On St. 
Pelagia: τὰ παρ᾽ ἑαυτῆς πάντα ἐπεδείκνυτο, τὴν προθυμίαν, TO φρόνημα, 
τὸ γενναῖον, τὸ βουληθῆναι, τὸ προελέσθαι, τὸ σπεῦσαι, τὸ ἐπειχθῆναι. The 
idea is first stated broadly, then analyzed in graded enumeration, 
the first group of three, the next of two, and the last of two syno- 
nyms denoting successively the disposition, act of the will, and its 
execution. 


Another form of amplification is the figure κατ᾽ ἄρσιν καὶ θέσιν, 
less properly called arsis, which presents the idea first negatively 
and then positively, the positive statement being introduced by 
ἀλλά. This figure is very common. Here is an example of four- 
fold arsis, 52, 396, 10: 

᾿Αλλ᾽ οὐ δικαστηρίου καιρὸς viv, ἀλλ᾽ ἐλέους" 
οὐκ εὐθύνης, ἀλλὰ φιλανθρωπίας: 
οὐκ ἐξετάσεως, ἀλλὰ συγχωρήσεως: 

οὐ ψήφου καὶ δίκης, ἀλλὰ οἴκτρου καὶ χάριτος. 

Note the fine balance of this period and the pleonasm of five 
synonyms for justice on the negative, opposed to five synonyms 
for mercy on the positive side. The most striking example occurs 
in 50, 710, 54, where there is an eightfold arsis, followed at 711, 
7 by nine more instances of the same figure, separated only by 
an occasional introductory clause. 


Epanaphora is the repetition of the same word, or words, at 
the head of successive cola. Hermogenes informs us that the 
sophists employed it with a view to δεινότης, and ranges it among 
the figures that give beauty to style.* It should be used with cola, 
rather than κόμματα, otherwise the effect is one of γοργότης (nerv- 
ous energy). It is most emphatic when asyndetic, especially at the 


4 Spengel, περὶ ἰδεῶν, 358, 8. 


31 


head of rhetorical questions. In this form it occurs very often 
in Chrysostom. The most elaborate instances are: at the head of 
interrogative cola, πῶς .... . 5 times, 49, 386, 9. Ποῦ. ... 8 
times in a series of short questions, ¢.g., ποῦ ὁ πλοῦτος ; ποῦ τὰ 
ἀργυρώματα; ποῦ... .. This series is preceded by five short cola, 
Pacnebepinning with ore... . ore... ... 52, 390, 12. Ib. 301, 
30: mov .... 5 times. Μέχρι πότε... . . 7 times in short ques- 
tions, 52, 400, 60. Tis . . . . 5 times with cola of moderate length, 
50, 435, 13. Ov δύνασαι. . . .; 6 times with short questions, 52, 
410, 10, and ov δύνασαι εἶναι. . . .; 7 times in as many questions 
followed by five answers each headed by Tévov . . . . in a climax, 
52, 410, 22. Mostly in κόμματα, not interrogative: ὅταν. . .. 4 
times, followed by τότε... . . also 4 times, 49, 398, 4. Πανταχοῦ 
.... Ὁ times in an enumeration of nouns, 52, 409, 30. Μηδείς 
. 13 times with nouns, 49, 390,2. Εἰσῆλθεν εἰς. . . . καί. ... 

4 times, followed by ἀπῆλθεν εἰς. . . . kal... . 5 times, 52, 409, 
38—a very artificial instance. Tvpavvos .... 5 times, heading 
clauses of parallel structure, 50, 644, 26. A very remarkable 
example is: ὧδε... . . 10 times, alternating with ἐκεῖ. . . . also 
IO times, 6. 9., ὧδε γηρῶ, ἐκεῖ ov γηρῶ, ὧδε θνήσκω, ἐκεῖ . . . . The 
oddest instance we have found occurs in: 52, 404, 23-46, where 
Aw τί ἐκλήθη... . is repeated 18 times in rhetorical questions, 
each followed by an answer, thus: Διὰ τί ἐκλήθη ὁδός ; “ἵνα μάθης, ὅτι, 
. . the four first answers headed by ἵνα μάθης ὅτι; the other 14 


The opposite of epanaphora is antistrophe, which consists in 
the repetition of the same word, or words, at the end of suc- 
cessive clauses: 52, 402, 50: ζηλεύει Θεὸς, ὀργίζεται Θεὸς, peravoei 


eremrrre Mes. 52, 309, 20°... . . ὑβρίζη, . ... . ὑβρίσῃς, . . .. 
ὑβρίσθης (Imperfect). ΠΟΥ 0S Vs ἡγε ἃ γάμου 3 times. 52, 402, 
I5:.... καλεῖται repeated 15 times in short κόμματα, with poly- 


syndeton, ὁ. 4., καὶ Πατὴρ καλεῖται, καὶ ὁδὸς καλεῖται... .. 


Symploke is epanaphora and antistrophe combined. Few in- 
stances of this artificial figure were found. The most striking 
one is: 52, 403, 48: ποτὲ. . . . ἐστί repeated 11 times, e.g., ποτὲ 
γύμφη ἐστί, ποτὲ θυγάτηρ ἐστί. . . . a twelfth clause sums up, πάντα 
ἐστί. 50, 436, 34: σήμερον ἐν γῇ χαρὰ, σήμερον ἐν οὐρανῷ χαρά. Cr 
52, 405, 35; 50, 435, 39. 

The very artificial figure of κύκλος occurs when the first clause 
of a period begins, and the next or the last clause ends with the 
samie word: (a—, —a); or (a—, ...., —a). Here is a double 


32 


κύκλος, Which is also a twofold instance of the figure called 
definitio: 50, 653, 8: 

χρήματα yap διὰ τοῦτο καλεῖται, 

ἵνα αὐτοῖς εἰς δέον χρώμεθα, 

οὐχ ἵνα κατορύττωμεν'" 

κτήματα διὰ τοῦτο λέγονται, 

ἵνα ἡμεῖς αὐτὰ κτησώμεθα, 

καὶ μὴ αὐτῶν γενώμεθα κτήματα. 

The first κύκλος is not perfect, because χρήματα is not repeated 
in the same form. Note the parallel structure of these two periods 
forming a πάρισον. 50, 433, 15: ἀπῆλθεν ἡ νηστεία, ἀλλὰ μενέτω ἡ 
εὐλάβεια: μᾶλλον δὲ οὐδὲ ἡ νηστεία ἀπῆλθε. 

Another highly artificial figure is the so-called κλίμαξ, ἃ repe- 
tition of the last word of the preceding clause in several clauses 
of the period. A dozen instances were found: 50, 440, 27: ᾿Απὸ 
yap γέλωτος εὐτραπελία, ἀπὸ εὐτραπελίας αἰσχρολογία, ἀπὸ αἰσχρολογίας 
αἰσχρὰ πράγματα, ἀπὸ πραγμάτων αἰσχρῶν κολάσεις καὶ τιμωρίαι (three- 
fold). 52, 398, 45: Κἂν γὰρ μὴ πάντες ἀκούσωσι, οἱ ἡμίσεις ἀκούσονται" 
κἂν μὴ οἱ ἡμίσεις ἀκούσωσι, τὸ τρίτον μέρος: κἂν μὴ τὸ τρίτον μέρος, τὸ 
τέταρτον: κἂν μὴ τὸ τέταρτον, κἂν δέκα: κἂν μὴ δέκα κἂν πέντε: κἂν μὴ 
πέντε, κἂν εἷς: κἂν μὴ εἷς, ἐγὼ τὸν μισθὸν ἀπηρτισμένον ἔχω (sixfold). 
ΟΥΒΟ 446, 51 152,410,903 Ure. 

Hyperbaton is the transposition of words from their gram- 
matical order. ‘Three chief varieties occur in Chrysostom: 

1) The article is separated from its noun by a long interval. 
This form of hyperbaton was thought by the sophists to lend 
beauty to style, e.g., 59, 481, 22: Tov οὖν xa6’ ἑκάστην, ὡς εἰπεῖν, ὑπὲρ 
TOV τὴν οἰκουμένην οἰκούντων ἀλγοῦντα. 50, 476, 53: τὰ ς ἐν τοσούτοις 
ἔτεσι τοῦ Παύλου μάστιγας. 

2) The noun is separated from its possessive or explanatory 
modifier, e.g., 50, 593, 30: ἵνα τῆς ἀναστάσεως TOV σταυρωθέντος 
Χριστοῦ διὰ τῶν ἔργων παράσχωνται τὴν ἀπόδειξιν. 

3) The most frequent form is the interposition of a verb, or 
of several words, between a noun and its adjective, e.g., 49, 398, 
8: τῆς θυσίας ἀπολαῦσαι ταύτης. Often this is done to emphasize a 
word placed alone at the beginning, or at the end of the clause, 
48, 623, 29: Ἣν δὲ ἡμῖν. . . . καὶ σπουδὴ περὶ τοὺς λόγους, οὖς 
ἐπονούμεθα, μία. 50, 474, 19: δαψιλὴς ἡ τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐξεχύθη εἰς 
αὐτὸν δωρεά. Frequently the adjective and noun are thus sep- 
arated to set off the consonance of their endings, producing an 
effect similar to the homoioteleuton, e.g., 59, 25, 25: καὶ τοσούτων 


39 


γέμουσα ἀπορρήτων, καὶ τοσαῦτα κομίζουσα ἀγαθά. 49, 398, 9: τῇ 
τραπέζῃ προσιὼν ταύτῃ. 40, 307, 42: οὐ τά φῳ μέλλοντες παρίστασθαι 
κενῷ. 52, 393, 78: τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἐννοώμεθα πραγμάτων. 

Alliteration and paronomasia are figures arising from the 
tendency towards symmetry and antithesis. Alliteration signifies 
the recurrence of the same initial letter or letters in words gen- 
erally succeeding immediately. If the same sounds occur in the 
middle or at the end of succeeding words, the figure is assonance. 
Chrysostom shows a great fondness for this poetical and musical 
figure. Omitting the very frequent instances of pairs of words 
containing this figure, many of which may be accidental, we cite 
only the more striking combinations: 


a) Alliteration, 50, 437, 32: πολλάκις 6 πένης τὸν πλούσιον πρωτεύει 
ἐν τῇ εὐσεβείᾳ. 50, 439, 9: αὕτη ἀνάστασις ἀπαλλαγὴ ἁμαρτημάτων. 50, 
442, 11: τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἀπολαύσομεν τῶν ἀποκειμένων τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν. 
50, 637, 32: ποιῆσωμεν τοὺς παῖδας πατραλοίας διὰ τῆς προδοσίας. 40, 
205, 27: ἀμείλικτος καὶ ἀνένδοτος καὶ αὐτοαδάμας. 50, 437, 51: 
πανταχόθεν περιρραντίζεται, καὶ πολλὰ προστρίβεται. 

Ὁ) Assonance, 52, 401, 59: ἄλλον ὀχήματι φερόμενον, σηρικὸν 
περιβεβλημένον ἱμάτιον, κορυφούμενον. 49, 383, 18: Διὰ τοῦτον οὖν 
δάκρυσον πικρὸν καὶ στέναξον μᾶλλον. 40, 36, 22: τῶν ἡμετέρων ὀφθαλμῶν 
τῷ τεθολῶσθαι τῆς ἀθυμίας. 

c) Alliteration and assonance combined, 50, 445, 23: ἕτερός τις 
ἐλθὼν, καὶ μέσον ἑαυτὸν ἐμβαλὼν ἑκατέρων λύει τὴν ἔχθραν. Ib. 38: πῶς 
οὐ πρότερον ἀπέστη πάντα ποιῶν καὶ πάσχων καὶ πραγματευόμενος, ἕως τὸν 
πολέμιον. 50, 476, 8: οὐδὲν οὐδέποτε πρὸς οὐδὲν ἀνθρώπινον πάθος ἔπαθεν 
(with paronomasia). 50, 573, 18: . σφαττομένων, καιομένων, 
κρημνιζομένων, καταποντιζομένων. 50, 602, 13: πάντα τὰ μέλλοντα 
προορῶν πόρρωθεν, προσίοντα τὸν πόλεμον ἀπεκρούετο. 50, 636, 3: 
μητρὸς προσεδρία, καὶ πατρὸς πρόνοια, καὶ πολλὴ παρὰ τῶν γονέων 
ἐπιμέλεια γίνεται. 50, 630, 55: ἐξαίφνης ἐπιτάγματα πονηρὰ πανταχοῦ 
κατεπέμπετο πολλῆς. 50, 679, 2: ποικίλον προσθήκην καὶ πλεονασμὸν 
πλείονος δόξης παρεσκεύασε. 50, 637, 18: τότε τοίνυν ταῦτα ἐπιτάττοντες. 
50, 530, 26: ἀποσυλῆσαι τὸν κοσμὸν, καὶ καταλῦσαι τὸ κήρυγμα. Lb. 37: 
τῆς τῶν πραγμάτων πείρας πάντων ἀξιοπιστοτέραν ταύτην εἶναι πεπίστευκα 
(with paronomasia). 50, 636, 15: μάρτυρες αὗται μεταξὺ Σοδόμων καὶ 
πάντων τῶν πολεμίων οὖσαι, καὶ πολιορκούμεναι πανταχόθεν, οὐδὲν ἔπασχον 
δεινόν. 50, 686, 30: οὐ γὰρ γοητείᾳ ἐγίνετο τὰ γινόμενα. 

Paronomasia is based on the similarity of sound of entire 
words, irrespective of their relative position in the colon. With 
this similarity of sound is combined dissimilarity of sense, thus 


34 


constituting a play on words, which is most effective when words 
most similar in sound are most dissimilar in sense. The various 
forms of paronomasia may be grouped under two heads, 1) Words 
having the same root: 


a) With changes and additions of prefixes, 49, 36, 52: ἡ 


πολύπαις amas... . γεγένητα. 40, 41, 2: evrédAeav.. 
πολυτέλειαν. 49, 41, 25: τὸ μεῖζον τῆς ypelas . . . . ἄχρηστον. 49, 
45, 30: ιἅπονον ... . ἐπίπονον. 49, 45, 43: ἀρρωστημᾶτι 


εὔρωστα. 50, 447, 1: οὔτε καταβῆναι ἦν κατώτερον, οὗ κατέβη ὁ ἄνθρωπος, 
οὔτε ἀναβῆναι ἀνώτερον, οὗ ἀνῆγαγεν αὐτὸν πάλιν (antithetical parison). 
51, 45, 27: ἅγιος γάρ ἐστι, καὶ πανάγιος καὶ ἁγίων ἁγιώτερος. 52, 306, 


24:. ἀπάνθρωπον. .. .: φιλάνθρωπον. 52, 413, 5: KadAn.... 
φιλοκαλίαν. . . . ἄμορφος... .. εὔμορφον. 52, 409, 16: ἀσεβείας 
. εὐσεβείας. 52, 394, 22: καθαρόν. ... ἀκάθαρτος. 52, 404, 


17: οὗτος τοσοῦτος καὶ τηλικοῦτος (a favorite figure of the sophists). 
b) With changes of case (polyptoton), voice, mood, tense 
etc.: Instances of this kind are so common that we cite only a few, 
52, 307, 48: Μένε εἰς Ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ οὐ προδίδοσαι ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας. 
Ἐὰν δὲ φύγῃς ἀπὸ ᾿Εκκλησίας, οὐκ αἰτία ἡ Ἐκκλησία. 50, 637, 30: τῷ 
φονεύοντι παραδοὺς τὸν φονεύεσθαι μέλλοντα, αὐτὸς τὸν φόνον εἰργάσατο. 
50, 701, 15: διώκεσθαι καὶ μὴ διώκειν, ἐλαύνεσθαι, καὶ μὴ ἐλαύνειν. . .. 
οὐ σταυρώσας, ἀλλὰ σταυρωθεὶς, οὐ ῥαπίσας, ἀλλὰ ῥαπισθείς. 50, 647, 
24: πολλοὶ πολλάκις. ... πολλοῖς. 50, 579, 34: οὐδεὶς οὐδέποτε 
. οὐδέν. 50, 581, 41: οὐδεμίαν οὐδαμόθεν. 52, 408, 12: οὗτος οὐχ 
οὕτως. 

2) Words of different roots. This form of paronomasia is 
called parechesis by some modern writers.’ The instances of this 
kind are not so numerous, but very artistic: 56, 266, 15 : παιδοκτόνους 
ἀντὶ πατέρων. . .. ἀποκαλῶν. 50, 207, 43: διὰ μικρὰν ἡδονὴν διηνεκῆ 
τὴν ὀδύνην ὑπομένετε. 40, 383, 28: εἰς δειλίαν ἐνάγει τοὺς «μαθητὰς καὶ 
ἐναγωνίους ποιεῖ. 40, 385, 57: καθαρὰν ἔχειν κατηγορίας τὴν γλῶσσαν. 
52, 392, 61: ἀναλώσασαι.. .. ἀπολαύσασα. 52, 392, 48: ἀσφάλειαν 
ἑαυτοῖς διὰ τῆς σῆς ἀγωνίας. 52, 400, 41: ἐγκώμια. . .. ἐγκλήματα. 
52, 405, 326: iva τὴν πόρνην παρθένον ἐργάσηται. 52, 402, 51: τὰ ῥήματα 

. τὰ νοήματα. 52, 401, 43: οὐ λέγω πρόσωπα (persons) ἀλλὰ 


πράγματα. 52, 401, 49: ἐγκαλοῦντα... .- ἐπαινοῦντα. 52, 397, 60: 
κλυδωνίζεται ἀλλ᾽ οὐ καταποντίζεται. 52, 307, 27: οὐ τόπον μόνον, ἀλλὰ 
καὶ τρόπον. 52, 393, 10: εὐτελείας... . ἀληθείας. 52, 304, 32: μὴ 


ποιεῖτε τοιαῦτα, ἵνα μὴ πάθητε τοιαῦτα. Ib. 18: ἅρπαγα ἅπτεσθαι. 50, 
439, 11: ἔδωκε τὴν μείζονα, προσδόκα καὶ τὴν ἐλάττονα. 49, 38, 4: τὸ 


5 Cf. J. C. Robertson, The Gorgianic Figures in early Greek Prose, 22, 
Baltimore, I8oI. 


35 


ἁμάρτημα γέγονεν ὀλίγων, καὶ τὸ ἔγκλημα γίνεται κοινόν. 40, 40, 24: 
Πῶς δὲ ἔχει τὴν κτῆσιν, ὧν τὴν χρῆσιν οὐκ ἔχει (Said of a miser). 40, 
50, 51: οἰκίαν... .. οὐσίαν. 40, 40, 44: ἀκαταγώνιστον καταγώγιον. 
52, 417, 4: περίκοπτε τὸ περιττόν. 51, 270, δῶ: μηδὲν περαιτέρω 
περιεργάζου. 51, 46, 29: οὐ τρυφὴν, ἀλλὰ τροφὴν. 50, 644, 47: τὰς 
εὐαπατήτους τε καὶ εὐπτοήτους γυναῖκας. 50, 602, 14: προορῶν πόρρωθεν. 
50, 615, 28: τρανοτέρῳ (clearer) φθόγγῳ τὸν τύραννον ἤλεγχεν. 50, 
521, 43: κεῖνται ἀκίνητα. 50, 682, 43 ff: Ποία γὰρ κοινωνία μέθῃ καὶ 
μάχῃ; γαστρίζεσθαι καὶ ἀνδρίζεσθαι;.. .. ὁπλίζου, μὴ καλλωπίζξζου: 

. ἀνδρίζου, μὴ ὡραΐζου. This is the most striking example we 
have found. 50, 671, 27: Ἐκεῖνον (the prophet Daniel) μὲν εἰς 
λάκκον ἀπέκλεισαν, τοῦτον (St. Julian) δὲ εἰς σάκκον ἐνέβαλον. 48, 
634, 1: κἂν λιμὸς 7) κἂν λοιμός (a favorite pun of the sophists). 55, 
166, 41: χρυσῶν ἱματίων ἐπικειμένων καὶ ὑποκειμένων, ὥσπερ ἐν καμίνῳ 
κεῖται καιόμενος (Said of a rich man). 

Proper names derived from common nouns have generally lost 
all special signification. Chrysostom sometimes makes a pun by 
drawing on the original meaning of such names, 6. g., speaking of 
Sts. Bernice and Prosdoce, Martyrs, 50, 638, 17: “They came to 
a city called Ἱεράπολις, and thence they verily ascended εἰς τὴν ἱερὰν 
πόλιν (1.e., heaven).” In his sermon on St. Drosis (Apoois) who 
was tortured by fire, 50, 688, 49: “She looked upon the fire not as 
fire, but as dew (8pdcos).”” A pun on the double signification of a 
word occurs 50, 709, 1. Chrysostom, a few lines above, has rep- 
resented the martyrs on a red-hot gridiron (κλίμαξ, which also 
means ladder). It reminds him of the ladder seen by the patriarch 
Jacob in a dream, and he draws a contrast: “By the one (κλῖμαξ) 
the angels descended, by the other the martyrs ascended.” 

All these instances of verbal jugglery do credit to Chrysos- 
tom’s virtuosity of style, but they also show the artificiality of 
sophistic rhetoric. 

The oxymoron, or paradox, which is also a sort of pun, marks 
a still higher degree of artificiality. It denotes the combination 
of two terms apparently contradictory, but which, viewed in the 
light of the context, are not incompatible. The oxymoron 15, 
then, a kind of verbal antithesis. Though occurring rarely in the 
classic orators, it was employed with much gusto by the sophist 
rhetors on account of its piquant and sensational character. 

The Christian orators, whose taste had been formed in the 
sophist schools, regarded this figure, which is artistically defective, 
as very suitable for setting forth the wonderful and supernatural 
character of the Christian religion. The mysteries of the Faith, 


36 


the sacraments, the miracles, all offered a rich fund of themes, 
which were, humanly speaking, paradoxical. That Chrysostom, 
with his impressionable nature and sprightly fancy, should mani- 
fest a strong inclination for this figure, need not surprise us. 


It is highly interesting to note how he adapts one of the most 
famous oxymora of the sophists to a spiritual theme. We mean 
Gorgias’ figure of ἔμψυχοι τάφοι (living graves) to designate vul- 
tures, which the author of περὶ ὕψους 3, 2, says was much ridiculed, 
but which can be traced in Latin literature from Ennius to Ovid, 
Metam. VI, 665, and Seneca, Contr. X, praef. 9, and in Greek 
literature in Achilles Tat. III, 5, 4,° and in the Christian fathers 
down to Gregory Nazianzen.? Chrysostom uses the figure in 
several variations. In his panegyric on St. Eustathius, Martyr, 
50, 600, 32, he says to the faithful: “And every one of you here 
present is a τάφος ἔμψυχος καὶ πνευματικός of the martyr; for if I 
unfold the conscience of each one, I find the saint abiding in your 
soul.” He continues: “The enemy has gained nothing and has 
rather increased the fame (of the saint) by making so many 
graves instead of one, living graves, τάφους φωνὴν ἀφιέντας, τάφους 
πρὸς τὸν αὐτὸν ζῆλον παρασκευαζομένους.᾽᾽ CURIS vise hopeless jumble 
of metaphors. Speaking of starving mothers who ate their off- 
spring,® he says, 50, 523, 33: τῶν γεννηθέντων παιδίων ἡ τεκοῦσα γαστὴρ 
ἐγένετο τάφος. Again, 50, 435, 20: “The drunkard, having buried 
his soul in his body as in a coffin (ἐν μνήματι), νεκρὸν περιφέρει τὸ 
copa.” 50, 421, 52: St. Paul and his disciples, who were daily in 
danger of death, are called ἔμψυχοι νεκροί. 


In the majority of cases the oxymoron is formed by combining 
a term taken figuratively with one taken literally, e.g., of the 
wicked it is said, 50, 663, 4: ἐν ἑορταῖς ἀνεορτοί εἰσιν. 50, 688, 5: 
ὅταν γυναῖκες ἀνδρίζωνται, 1. 6., Show a manly courage in suffering 
martyrdom. Referring to a religious service held on the sea, 
during which lighted torches were employed, Chrysostom says, 50, 
700, 43: “Let us again make the sea a Church, xai 76 zip 
ἐνυγραίνοντες, καὶ TO ὕδωρ ἐμπιμπλῶντες πυρός. Of the good example 
of the martyrs he says, 50, 648, 23: Eidere πῶς δυνατωτέρα καὶ 
σιγώντων ἡ φωνὴ τῶν μαρτύρων; Christ descended into limbo (aéys), 
καὶ τὸν ἅδην ἐποίησεν οὐρανόν, which is explained: “For where Christ 
is, there is heaven,” 49, 395, 40. 


6 Cf. Norden, Die Antike Kunstprosa 1, 385. 

7 37, 1587. Cf. J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, Part II, ed. 2, 
II (London 1889), 208, 2. 

8 Jerem. Lament. IV, Io. 

9 Cf. also 49, 22, 42. 


-- 


vol. 


37 


Often the oxymoron arises from joining a word taken in the 
material sense with another taken in the spiritual sense. Thus the 
physical blindness of St. Paul had the effect of converting him 
and giving spiritual vision to the world, 50, 487, 14: ἡ πήρωσις ἐκεί- 
νου φωτισμὸς γέγονε τῆς οἰκουμένης, and, with double antithesis : Ἐπειδὴ 
γὰρ ἔβλεπε κακῶς, ἐπήρωσεν αὐτὸν καλῶς ὁ Θεὸς, ὥστε ἀναβλέψαι χρησίμως. 
Commenting on I Cor. XV, 31, “I die daily,” Chrysostom asks, 50, 
601, 26: πῶς δυνατὸν ἑνί σώματι θνητῷ μυρίους δέξασθαι θανάτους ; and 
explains that the Apostle means his constant readiness to die for 
the faith. With reference to Matth. XI, 12: “The kingdom of 
heaven suffereth violence,” Chrysostom makes Christ say, 52, 401, 
52: Ἐμὲ ἅρπασον, χάριν σοι ἔχω τῆς ἁρπαγῆς, and adds: “If thou art 
minded to lay hold of an earthly kingdom, thou art punished ; but 
in the case of the heavenly kingdom, thou art punished if thou dost 
not lay hold of it.” 49, 396, 47: ἀπὸ θανάτου (1.e., of Christ) 
γεγόναμεν ἀθάνατοι. 

Sometimes the two terms, which in their ordinary signification 
are contradictory, represent two figures of speech not incompat- 
ible, e.g., 52, 395, 29: ἡ πέτρα (1.e., the hearts of the faithful) 
γέγονε βαθύγειος (spiritually productive). 52, 399, 8: τὰ ἑτέρων 
ναυάγια ὑμῖν λιμένα κατασκευάζων, ἽΠΠΟΝ teaching you to avoid personal 
danger by placing before you the disasters of others. 


The scenes of martyrdom present situations favorable to the 
paradox, e.g., 50, 614, 2: Chrysostom addresses the tyrant and 
bids him cut out the tongue of St. Roman, in order that he may 
recognize human nature καὶ ἄγλωσσον ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ ῥητορεύουσαν. He 
then relates how the martyr miraculously retained his speech 
after his tongue had been cut out, and exclaims: θέαμα καινὸν καὶ 
παράδοξον: (Chrysostom’s favorite introduction to a paradox) 
σάρκινος capkivols ἀσάρκως φθεγγόμενος. This oxymoron is due to the 
figurative use of dodpxws for ἀγλώσσως. 


In the discourse On St. Drosis, Martyr, we find a series of 
three oxymora, 50, 688, 43: αὕτη μανεῖσα poviav.... πάσης 
σωφροσύνης σεμνοτέραν : Chrysostom explains the meaning of μανία 
by stating that the martyr was ravished with longing for Christ, 
so that, οὐδὲν τῶν ὁρωμένων ἑώρα, and she considered the fire οὐχὶ πῦρ, 
ἀλλὰ δρόσον. Here is an oxymoron which misses the mark, be- 
cause the two terms are in no wise contradictory: On St. Domnina, 
mother of Sts. Bernice and Prosdoce, Virgin Martyrs, 50, 644, 22: 


, , ,ὔ > , θέ 
μήτηρ λύσασα παρθενίαν εἰς γένεσιν παρθένων. 


38 


The Sacraments, with their spiritual efficacy, lend themselves to 
paradoxical treatment: Commenting on Ephes. V, 18: “And be 
not drunk with wine, wherein is luxury: but be ye filled with the 
holy Spirit,’ Chrysostom says: 50, 435, 53, Αὕτη ἡ καλὴ μέθη: 
κάρωσόν σου τὴν ψυχὴν τῷ Πνεύματι, and then he refers to the chalice 
of the Blood of Christ: Ἔστιν ἡμῖν ποτήριον μέθης Kadov... . 
σωφροσύνην ποιοῦν, ov παράλυσιν. Applying Matth. ἘΝ, 19: “Come ye 
after me, and I will make you to be fishers of men,” to the Sacra- 
ment of Baptism, Chrysostom exclaims, 50, 436, 46: “Verily a 
new mode of fishing! the fishermen (ordinarily) draw the fish out 
of the water (ἐκβάλλουσιν), but we throw them into the water 
(ἐνεβάλλομεν), and thus catch the fish.” Of the waters of Baptism 
he says, 50, 440, 12: “A new mode of cleansing. In bodily 
cleansing the more are washed, the filthier the water gets, but here 
(ἡ. ὁ., in Baptism) the more are washed, the cleaner the water 
becomes.” . 


The oxymoron is at times presented in the form of a so-called 
αἴνιγμα or riddle, which consists in obscuring the idea by repre- 
senting it as impracticable or substantially impossible, e.g., re- 
ferring to the calamity at Antioch, 49, 35, 25: “And now our 
calamity has become an enigma; a flight without enemies; an 
expulsion of inhabitants without a battle; a captivity without 
capture! A similar instance with reference to Christ’s dying for 
us on the cross occurs in 49, 396, 50: “Our weapons were not 
stained with gore, we stood not in battle array, we received not 
wounds, we saw not war, and yet we won the victory! The 
contest was the Lord’s, but the crown is ours!” 


Chrysostom’s penchant for the paradox occasionally makes 
him exceed the bounds of propriety. Thus, in Hom. 2 on Eutro- 
pits, the union of Christ with his Church is represented under 
various images, 52, 402, 25: “Even so the Church also is called 
by many names. She is called a virgin, although formerly she was 
a harlot: for this is the miracle wrought by the Bridegroom, that 
He took her who was a harlot and hath made her a virgin. Oh! 
what a new and strange event! With us marriage destroys vir- 
ginity, but with God marriage hath restored it..... Let the 
heretic who inquires curiously into the nature of heavenly gen- 
eration saying, ‘how did the Father beget the Son?’ interpret this 
single fact, ask him how did the Church, being a harlot, become 
a virgin? and how did she, having brought forth children, remain 
a virgin? (2 Cor. XI, 2.} After a long digression Chrysostom 


39 


resumes, and formulates a paradox which is shocking in its bold- 
ness, 52, 405, 29: “But as I was saying, 6 τοσοῦτος καὶ τηλικοῦτος 
ἐπεθύμησε πόρνης. ldpvns ἐπεθύμει ὁ Θεός ; Ναὶ, πόρνης. Then he 
explains: “I speak of our human nature under that name. ... . 
A man desireth a harlot that he may become a fornicator: but 
God that He may convert the harlot into a virgin.” Nothing 
could better prove the unsound nature of the paradox. Instead of 
tending to lessen the difficulties which the Faith offers to the in- 
quiring mind, it rather accentuates all there is in the mysteries of 
religion to stagger and disconcert human reason. 


The sensational and flashy qualities of the paradox are shared 
by a figure closely akin to it, the hyperbole. Indeed, the paradox 
is, so to speak, only a more subtle form of exaggeration. The 
hyperbole denotes the magnifying of an object beyond its natural 
bounds. Like the paradox it is not one of the ordinary habits of 
Chrysostom’s style, but is employed only on special occasions and 
under the influence of some strong emotion, such as pity, grief, 
indignation, or admiration; as when he denounces Libanius’ 
monody on the grove of Daphne and the temple of Apollo (50, 
560-566), calling the sophist a blackguard (ib. 562), and com- 
paring him to a madman (1b. 563), or when, in his homily on 
_Eutropius, he points to the unhappy consul, “who had shaken the 
whole world” (52, 394, 63), but who was now clinging to a pillar 
of the altar, “more cowardly than a rabbit or a frog” (7b. 395, 1). 
Such exaggerations are moderate and evoked by sincere feeling, 
which makes them appear perfectly natural. 


But there are occasions when the preacher lapses into a false 
pathos, and tries to communicate to his audience feelings which 
he himself does not share. For instance, when he describes the 
violent tortures of the martyrs, their heroic fortitude, and the 
cruelty of their persecutors, Chrysostom launches into strains of 
wild exaggeration. The eulogies on the Maccabees furnish some 
typical examples, e.g., 50, 625, 5: The youngest of the seven 
brothers “hurls himself into the cauldron, deeming it a divine bath 
and baptism, as people whose clothes have caught fire leap into a 
lake of cold water; so inflamed was he with longing to join his 
brothers.”” The mother of the Maccabees had only one fear, 
namely, that the tyrant might spare one of her sons and thus rob 
him of his crown, and therefore “she all but seized her youngest 
son with her hands and thrust him into the cauldron, employing 
the exhortation and counsel of words in place of her hands” (50 


40 


621, 40). Far from feeling the anguish of a mother’s heart at 
seeing her sons cruelly tortured, “she exults more than a mother 
who decks her sons for their wedding” (50, 626, 4). “With all 
her senses she perceived the trial of her children: she beheld 
them with her eyes, she heard their words with her ears, and with 
her nose perceived the odor of (roasting) flesh, which was both 
savory and unsavory (note the paradox) : unsavory indeed to the 
unbelievers, but to God and to her most sweet!” (1b.) These 
extravagant hyperboles, instead of arousing in the audience sen- 
timents of admiration, must have excited intense aversion to a 
mother represented as so unnatural and devoid of all maternal 
feeling.?° 

It is easy to understand that, when Chrysostom undertakes to 
celebrate the virtues of some saint, the hyperbole receives a promi- 
nent place. It was a requirement of the sophistic eulogy that the 
merits of the hero be systematically magnified. Chrysostom’s first 
panegyric on St. Paul will best illustrate this (50, 473). The 
fundamental idea of the discourse is that St. Paul “possessed all 
the virtues found in all men, and that in transcendent measure, 
yea, even those of all the angels” (7b. 29). The preacher then 
enumerates the great patriarchs and prophets of old, Abel, Noe, 
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, concluding with David, Elias, 
Moses, John the Baptist, and the angels. The distinctive virtues 
of each are compared with those of St. Paul, with the result that 
the latter is pronounced superior to them all. In his second dis- 
course on the same saint (50, 481, 36), Chrysostom remarks that 
neither gold, nor adamant, nor even the whole world are worthy 
to be compared with Paul. Then he adds: “If then the whole 
world is not worthy of him, what is? Perhaps heaven? Nay, 
this too is trivial. Because he preferred the love of the Lord to 
heaven, the Lord valued him above ten thousand heavens.” Again 
in 50, 479, 50: “St. Paul, scourged, insulted, and reviled every- 
where, gloried in the fact as if he were walking in a triumphal 
procession and setting up trophies everywhere.” 


It is hardly necessary to call attention to the bad taste and 
artificiality of the instances of the paradox and hyperbole noted 
above. Both the oxymoron and the hyperbole are not the exact 
expression of an extraordinary situation, or of moderate senti- 
ment; on the contrary, their tendency is to distort the just pro- 
portions of the facts exposed. Together they form one of the 


10  η Gregory Nazianzen’s even more extreme treatment of the same 
subjert cf. Guignet, 244 ff. 


41 


most objectionable and unartistic traits of sophistic rhetoric, as 
we shall point out frequently in the course of this study. 


We have in this chapter reviewed some of the minor figures 
employed by the rhetors to embellish their style, and have noted 
the prominent place they hold in the rhetorical system of Chrysos- 
tom. We shall now proceed to examine a class of figures which 
even to a greater extent illustrate the sophistic tendencies of 
Chrysostom. 


CHAPTER IV 


SYMMETRY OF THE PERIOD: THE GORGIANIC FIGURES 


The figures reviewed in the preceding chapter have not a very 
great artistic value as compared with the so-called Gorgianic 
figures, the parison, the antithesis, and the homoioteleuton. These 
Gorgianic figures are the main factors which contribute to paral- 
lelism and symmetry of the period, a distinctive feature of Greek 
prose, and notably of oratorical prose. The excessive employ- 
ment of these figures was one of the prevailing vices of the Asiatic 
and later of the sophist orators. Chrysostom shares this weak- 
ness. His desire for symmetrical periods makes him at times 
very diffuse, and some of his series of parisa are of tedious length 
and monotonous uniformity. 


The parison presents two or more successive cola having the 
same general structure, often with an exact correspondence be- 
tween the respective parts of the cola, e.g.: 

With homoioteleuton, 50, 531, 13: 

ὅπου μαρτύρων μνῆμη, 
ἐκεῖ καὶ Ἕλληνων αἰσχύνη. 
With parallelism of ideas, 50, 575, 10: 
ἀποστῆναι μὲν τῆς εὐσεβείας, 
αὐτομολῆσαι δὲ πρὸς τὴν ἀσέβειαν. 

With paronomasia and homoioteleuton, 50, 616, 57: 

οὐ τοσοῦτον τῷ κήρυκι φθόνων, 
ὅσον τῷ κηρυττομένῳ βασκαίνων. 
With asyndeton, homoioteleuton at the beginning, and pare- 
cesis 2004031010" 
avappygov τὰς θήκας, 
ἀνόρρυξον τὰ ὀστᾶ, 
μετάστησον τοὺς νεκρούς. 

Observe the fourfold hyperbaton, and at the end of the κόμματα 

four synonyms, three of which are alliterative, 50, 483, 28: 
ἡ πρὸς ἐπιθυμίαν μάχη, 
ὁ περὶ τὴν γαστέρα πόλεμος, 
ἡ πρὸς τὴν φιλαργυρίαν παράταξις, 
ἡ πρὸς τὸν θυμὸν πάλη. 


42 


43 


The repetition of πάντα at the head of the pairs of synonyms 
gives to this remarkable enumeration the character of a parison, 
BaieAL 5,27: 

Πάντα θορύβων γέμει καὶ ταραχῆς, 
πάντα σκόπελοι καὶ κρημνοὶ, 
πάντα ὕφαλοι καὶ σπιλάδες, 
πάντα φόβοι καὶ κίνδυνοι καὶ ὑπόψιαι καὶ τρόμοι καὶ ἀγωνίαι. 

With contrast of ideas and homoioteleuton, 50, 476, 39: 

τοῦ μὲν ἡ οἰκία πάντι ἐλθόντι ἀνέῳκτο, 
τοῦ δὲ ἡ ψυχὴ πάσῃ τῇ οἰκουμένῃ ἤπλωτο. 
In the following description of Lazarus coming out of the 
tomb, note the polysyndeton and homoioteleuton, 50, 643, 54: 
καὶ 0 διαλελυμένος ὠρθοῦτο, 
καὶ ὃ σεσηπὼς ἠσθάνετο" 
ὁ νεκρὸς ὑπήκουεν, 
καὶ 0 δεσμώτης ἔτρεχεν, 
καὶ ὁ θρηνούμενος ἐσκίρτα. 
With epanaphora and homoioteleuton, 52, 399, 49: 
ὁ βουλόμενος ἀποτεμνέτω, 
ὃ βουλόμενος λιθαζέτω, 
ὃ βουλόμενος μισείτω. 
With paronomasia, 50, 640, 45: 
δύνανται yap καὶ θῆκαι μαρτύρων πολλὴν ἔχειν δύναμιν, 
ὥσπερ οὖν καὶ τὰ ὀστᾶ τῶν μαρτύρων πολλὴν ἔχει τὴν ἰσχύν. 

Three words are repeated in the second colon, and a synonym 

is used for δύναμιν for the sole purpose of forming a parison. 


Note the series of synonyms producing a strong parallelism of 
thought in the following, 49, 59, 54: 
᾿Εὰν μὴ πειρασμὸς, οὐδὲ στέφανος, 
ἐὰν μὴ παλαίσματα, οὐδὲ βραβεῖα, 
ἐὰν μὴ σκάμματα, οὐδὲ τιμαὶ, 
ἐὰν μὴ θλίψις, οὐδὲ ἄνεσις, 
ἐὰν μὴ χειμῶν, οὐδὲ θέρος. 
A very artificial period, with double epanaphora and climax, 
52, 410, 10: On the various ways of life leading to salvation: 
Οὐ δύνασαι διὰ παρθενίας εἰσελθεῖν ; Ἐΐσελθε διὰ povoyaptas. 
Οὐ δύνασαι διὰ μονογαμίας ; Κἂν διὰ δευτερογαμίας. 
Οὐ δύνασαι διὰ σωφροσύνης εἰσελθεῖν ; Ἐΐσελθε διὰ ἐλεημοσύνης. 
Οὐ δύνασαι διὰ ἐλεημοσύνης ; Εἴσελθε διὰ νηστείας. 
Οὐ δύνασαι ταύτην ; Δεῦρο ἐκείνην. 


, ~ / 
Οὐ δύνασαι ἐκείνην ; Δεῦρο ταύτην. 


44 


A powerful series of rhetorical questions, the effect of which 
is heightened by double epanaphora with asyndeton, 56, 267, 6: 


~ / 

Οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν οἴκων avatporat ; 

3 > ~ 7 > 4 = 
οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν σωφροσύνης ἀπώλεια ; 

3 > ~ / / 5 
οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν γάμων διαιρέσεις ; 

4. σὲ» - ΄, ΑΔΕ 7 : 
οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν πόλεμοι καὶ μάχαι ; 


3 9 ~ 3 , / > ΕΣ a 
οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν ἀηδίαι λόγον οὐκ ἔχουσαι ; 


With epanaphora and homoioteleuton in the two leading cola, 
ἘΠ. ΤΣ 
Οὐχ ἑώρα παριεστῶτας δημίους, 
ἀλλ᾽ ἑώρα κυκλοῦντας ἀγγέλους, 
ἐπελάθετο τῶν ὠδίνων, 
κατεφρόνησε τῆς φύσεως, 


ὑπερεῖδε τῆς ἡλικίας κτλ. 


Prolonged symmetry, with perfect parallelism of cola, and 
polysyndeton, 50, 663, 26: 
Voy 4 ΠῚ ΄, / hand 
Kal οὔτε οἰκέτην δεσπότου φόβος κατέσχεν, 

οὔτε πένητα ἡ τῆς πτωχείας ἀνάγκη, 
οὔτε γηραιὸν τῆς ἡλικίας ἡ ἀσθένεια, 
οὔτε γυναῖκα τὸ τῆς φύσεως ἁπαλὸν, 

οὔτε πλούσιον τῆς περιουσίας 6 τῦφος, 


» Ν 3, - 5" Ῥ e 9: ’ὔ 
ου τὸν αρχόοντα TIS ἐξουσίας η ἀπονοια. 


Note also, 52, 443, 52, a parison consisting of 11 short κόμματα, 
with chiasmus in the two first members: 
iva μάθητε τὸν πόθον τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, 
μάθητε τῶν ἐμῶν τέκνων τὴν εὐγένειαν, 


~ / Ν 4 
TOV στρατιώτων τὴν ἰσχύν κτλ. 


Ordinarily the corresponding parts of the cola in a parison 
follow one another in the same order ; however, at times Chrysos- 
tom shifts or reverses the order of words, thus producing a less 
rigid, but more elegant and varied parallelism. This device is 
called chiasmus, 6. g., 52, 395, 29: ἡ πέτρα γέγονε βαθύγειος, καὶ λιπαρὰ 
ἡ χώρα. 40, 305, 33: Hi καὶ τὸ λεγόμενον ev, ἀλλὰ διπλοῦν τὸ νοούμενον. 

Note how the position of the adjective and its noun is shifted 
in the following example: 52, 407, 27: Ei μέγας ὃ θησαυρὸς, διὰ τί τὸ 
σκεῦος ἀσθενές ; ᾿Αλλὰ μὴ διὰ τοῦτο ἀσθενὲς τὸ σκεῦος, ἐπειδὴ μέγας ὁ 
θησαυρός. 

Note the position of the adverbs in 52, 403, 19: Ῥήματά ἐστιν 


> ~ > - Ν / , 
ἐνταῦθα, ἐκεῖ δὲ πραγμάτων φύσις. 


45 


We cite a period each member of which is composed of a verb 
(A), and its object complement (B), 52, 443, 38: 
A.B. ᾽Ἐξέβαλες τὸν ποιμένα, 
B.A. τί τὴν ἀγέλην διέσπασας ; 
A.B. ᾿Απέστησας τὸν κυβερνήτην, 
B.A. τί τοὺς οἴακας κατέκλασας ; 
B.A. Τὸν ἀμπελουργὸν ἐξέβαλες, 


Β A ΕΝ 3 ΄ a2 ἃ 
.f\. Tl TAS ἀμπέλους ἀνέσπασας ; 


We need hardly call attention to the rhythm and geometrical 
design of this series of rhetorical questions, rendered more forcible 
by asyndeton. 


The following period shows Chrysostom’s virtuosity in the 
enumeration of κόμματα, a fine illustration of the choppy style of 
the Asiatic school; 50, 485, 24, on St. Paul: 

Καὶ yap ὥσπερ τὴν οἰκουμένην ἅπασαν yevvnoas, 
οὕτως ἐθορυβεῖτο, οὕτως ἔτρεχεν, 
οὕτω πάντας ἐσπούδαζεν εἰσαγαγεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν, 
θεραπεύων, παρακαλῶν, ὑπισχνούμενος, εὐχόμενος, ἱκετεύων, 
τοὺς δαίμονας φοβῶν, τοὺς διαφθείροντας ἐλαύνων, 
διὰ παρουσίας, διὰ γραμμάτων, διὰ ῥημάτων, 
διὰ πραγμάτων, διὰ μαθητῶν, 
δι ἑαυτοῦ τοὺς πίπτοντας ἀνορθῶν, τοὺς ἑστῶτας στηρίζων, 
διεγείρων τοὺς χαμαὶ κειμένους, 
θεραπεύων τοὺς συντετριμμένους, 
ἀλείφων τοὺς ῥαθυμοῦντας, 
φοβερὸν ἐμβοῶν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἐχθροῖς, 
δριμὺ βλέπων ἐπὶ τοῖς πολεμίοις" 
καθάπερ τις στρατηγὸς ἢ ἄριστος ἱατρὸς, 

αὐτὸς σκευοφόρος, αὐτὸς ὑπασπιστὴς, αὐτὸς ὑπερασπιστὴς, αὐτὸς 

παραστάτης, 


Ἂς / / ~ Ya 
αὐτὸς πάντα γινόμενος TO στρατοπέδῳ. 


Such periods are exceptional in Chrysostom, but frequent in 
Gregory Nazianzen.* 


The following is a highly artificial period, with almost perfect 
symmetry of cola, concluding with a threefold arsis, in which 
three verbs of the preceding cola are repeated; it is a fine ex- 
ample of pleonasm, the six cola being variations of one idea, which 


1 Cf. Norden, 566. 


46 


is powerfully emphasized by the arsis. Also note the homoio- 
teleuton, 49, 59, 27: 
Διὰ τοῦτο εὐχαριστῶ τῷ Θεῷ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν, 
ὅτι οὐκ ἤλεγξεν ὑμῶν τὴν φιλοσοφίαν ἡ συμφορὰ, 
οὐδὲ ἐξέλυσεν ὑμῶν τὸν τόνον ὃ φόβος, 
οὐδὲ ἔσβεσεν ὑμῶν τὴν προθυμίαν ἡ θλῖψις, 
οὐδὲ ἐμάρανεν ὑμῶν τὸν ζῆλον ὁ κίνδυνος, 
οὐδὲ ἐνίκησε τὸν περὶ Θεὸν πόθος ὁ τῶν ἀνθρώπων φόβος, 
οὐδὲ κατέβαλεν ὑμῶν τὴν σπουδὴν ἡ τοῦ καιροῦ δυσκολία. 
καὶ οὐ μόνον οὐ κατέβαλεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπέρρωσεν, 
οὐ μόνον οὐκ ἐξέλυσεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπέτεινεν, 
οὐ μόνον οὐκ ἔσβεσεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀνῆψε πλέον. 

To illustrate Chrysostom’s fondness for symmetrical periods, 
we refer to his discourse On the Holy Martyrs, where we found 
a long series of parisa extending from 50, 710, 45—7II, 21, con- 
taining fourteen cases of arsis; also to a series of twenty-seven 
successive clauses of parallel structure, grouped in three periods, 
49, 399, 3I—5I, in the discourse On the Cross and the Robber. 

The comparison furnishes Chrysostom a welcome occasion for 
a display of parallelism, as exemplified in the following descrip- 
tive and poetical contrast between a garden and the Holy Scrip- 
tures. A musical effect is imparted by the double epanaphora and 
an occasional homoioteleuton, 52, 396, 65: 

Ἔκεϊῖ μὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἄνθη μαραινόμενα, 
ἐνταῦθα δὲ νοηματα ἀκμάζοντα: 
ἐκεῖ ζέφυρος πνέων, 
ἐνταῦθα δὲ Ilvevparos αὔρα" 
ἐκεῖ ἄκανθαι τειχίζουσαι, 
ἐνταῦθα δὲ πρόνοια Θεοῦ ἡ ἀσφαλιζομένη: 
ἐκεῖ τέττιγες ἄδοντες, 
ἐνταῦθα δὲ προφῆται κελαδοῦντες" 
ἐκεῖ τέρψις ἀπὸ τῆς ὄψεως, 
ἐνταῦθα δὲ ὠφέλεια ἀπὸ τῆς ἀναγνώσεως: κτλ. 

In the following comparison on the tortures of the martyrs, 
Chrysostom selects two different aspects of the subject, in order 
to develop a double comparison, the elements of which exhibit a 
strong contrast and symmetrical structure. The parallelism is 
alternative, therefore more artistic, 50, 706, 48: 

*Av μὲν τῶν γινομένων τὴν φύσιν ἴδῃς, 
μάχη καὶ πόλεμος καὶ παράταξις τὰ γινόμενα" 
ἂν δὲ τὴν γνώμην τῶν γινομένων ἐξετάσῃς, 


Ν \ / Ν 
χοροὶ καὶ θαλίαι καὶ πανηγύρεις καὶ μεγίστη ἡδονὴ τὰ τελούμενα. 


47 


Note the chiasmus in the two subordinate clauses, the syno- 
nyms, and the double homoioteleuton. 


This last example illustrates the most artistic form of parison, 
namely, the antithetical parison, which expresses a contrast of 
ideas. The sophists set a high value on this figure, because it con- 
tributes to clearness and pleasure. Moreover, if we bear in mind 
that the character of Christian doctrine strongly favors the anti- 
thetical expression of thought, and that the Old as well as the 
New Testament abounds in antitheses, we can understand Chrys- 
ostom’s preference for this figure. He is, however, more moderate 
in its use than Gregory Nazianzen.? 


We quote only the more remarkable instances found in Chrys- 
ostom. Note the pleonasm produced by the four pairs of 
synonyms in 52, 396, 25: 

Ὥσπερ yap τὸν ὠμὸν καὶ ἀπάνθρωπον ἀποστρέφεται καὶ μισεῖ, 
οὕτω τὸν ἐλεήμονα καὶ φιλάνθρωπον προσίεται καὶ φιλεῖ. 

A series of four antitheses with chiasmus, 52, 417, ΤΟ: 

ἐν ταῖς εὐημερίαις, ἔλπιζε τὰς δυσημερίας: 
ἐν τῇ γαλήνῃ χειμῶνα προσδόκα’ 
ἐν τῇ ὑγείᾳ νόσον ἀνάμενε: 


> ~ 7, / \ / 4 
ἐν τῷ πλούτῳ πενίαν καὶ πτωχείαν ἔλπιζε. 


The artistic effect is highest when there is parallelism of 
structure in complex cola, the respective parts of which are anti- 
thetical, e.g., 50, 596, 15: 

Ὥστε ἅπασι χρῆσιμος ὃ θησαυρὸς, 
ἐπιτήδειον τὸ καταγώγιον, 
τοῖς μὲν ἐπταικόσιν, ἵνα ἀπαλλαγῶσι τῶν πειρασμῶν, 
τοῖς δὲ εὐημεροῦσιν, ἵνα βέβαια αὐτοῖς μείνῃ τὰ καλά: 
τοῖς μὲν ἐν ἀρρωστίᾳ, ἵνα πρὸς ὑγίειαν ἐπανέλθωσι, 


- Nee , Ψ Ν \ , ,ὕ 
τοις δὲ υγιαινουσιν, ινὰ μῇ προς ἀρρωστίαν KATATEOWOLYV. 


Another finely balanced period occurs in 50, 692, 43: 
‘ Ὥσπερ yap καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν εὐεργετουμένων, 
Ν ε \ / / ~ θ ~ 
καὶ οἱ μηδὲν παθόντες cuvndovtat τοῖς παθοῦσι, 
καὶ τὸν εὖ ποιήσαντα ἐπαινοῦσιν" 
οὕτως ἐπὶ τῶν ἐπηρεαζομένων 
καὶ οἱ μηδὲν ἠδικημένοι συναλγοῦσι τοῖς κακῶς πεπονθόσι, 


Ν ’ὔ ’ 
καὶ τὸν ποιήσαντα κακίξουσι. 


2 Cf. Guignet, 122 ff. 


48 


A symmetrical period in a contrast between the grave of Laza- 
rus and the graves of the holy martyrs Domnina, Bernice, and 
Prosdoce occurs, 50, 644, 4: 

Τάφος ἐκεῖ καὶ τάφος ἐνταῦθα: 
ἀλλ᾽ ὁ μὲν τοῦ Λαζάρου τάφος ἀνοιγόμενος 
τὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ δύναμιν ἐμφανίζει, 

ε x ~ ~ » / \ 3 ~ 

ὁ δὲ THY γυναικῶν τάφος κεκλεισμένος καὶ ἐνεργῶν 

τὴν τοῦ Σωτῆρος χάριν κηρύττει: 
3 ~ \ ε Ἂς / Ν / 5 ’ 
ἐκεῖ νεκρὸς ὑπὲρ φύσιν τὸν τάφον ἐκτρέχων, 
> ~ ~ Ν ’, ~ / / 
ἐνταῦθα γυναῖκες παρὰ φύσιν τοῖς τάφοις προστρέχουσιν' 
ἐκεῖ θείας δυνάμεως σημεῖον 


~ 4 J , 
ἐνταῦθα προαιρέσεως γενναΐας τεκμήριον" 


(Here two cola of the text are mutilated) 
ἐκεῖ μετὰ τὸν θάνατον ἀναβίωσις, καὶ ἐνταῦθα Eun: 
ἐκεῖ θάνατος βιαίως λῃστεύεται, 


ἐνταῦθα θάνατος προδήλως πατεῖται. 


Note the double epanaphora, double polyptoton, paronomasia, 
homoioteleuton, and chiasmus in the above. 


Contrast between truth and error, 50, 496, 5: 
Τοιοῦτον yap ἡ πλάνη, καὶ μηδένος ἐνοχλοῦντος, καταρρεῖ, 


~ ~ / 
τοιοῦτον 7) ἀλήθεια, καὶ πολλῶν πολεμούντων, διεγείρεται. 


On the vicissitudes of life, 50, 500, 4: 


ὁ μὲν ὑπὸ τῆς εὐημερίας πρὸς TO ὕψος ἐπήρθη, 
ὁ δὲ ὑπὸ δυσπραγίας εἰς πολὺ κατηνέχθη βάθος. 
Note the hyperbaton in the second colon. 
Contrast between the hardships of this earthly life and the 
rewards of the life eternal, 50, 667, 58: 
Διὰ τοῦτο τοὺς μὲν πόνους συνεκλήρωσε TO βραχεῖ Kal TpocKaipw αἰῶνι. 
τοὺς δὲ στεφάνους ἐταμιεύσατο τῷ ἀγήρῳ καὶ ἀθανάτῳ. 
The purpose for which God grants riches is expressed in this 
antithetical arsis, 49, 43, 44: 
οὐχ ἵνα κατακλείσῃς ἐπὶ ὀλέθρῳ τῷ σῷ, 
ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα ἐκχέης ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ τῇ σῇ. 
The fickleness of wealth, 49, 41, 37: 
σήμερον μετὰ σοῦ, 


Ν ", Ν ~ 
Kal QUPLOV Κατα σου. 


49 


The tree of Paradise and the tree of the Cross, 49, 396, 36: 
Περὶ τὸ δένδρον κατηγωνίσατο τὸν ᾿Αδὰμ 6 διάβολος: 
περὶ τὸν σταυρὸν κατεπάλαισε τὸν διάβολον ὁ Χριστός: 
καὶ ξύλον τὸ μὲν ἔπεμπεν εἰς ἅδην, 
τὸ δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἀπελθόντας ἐκεῖθεν ἀνεκαλεῖτο. 
Πάλιν ξύλον τὸ μὲν τὸν αἰχμάλωτον γυμνὸν ἔκρυψε, 
τὸ δὲ τὸν νικέτην γυμνὸν ἐφ᾽ ὑψηλοῦ πᾶσιν ἐδείκνυ. 

The consequences of the death of Adam contrasted with the 
effects of Christ’s death, 1b., 43: 

Kat θάνατος 6 μὲν τοὺς μετ᾽ αὐτὸν κατέκρινεν, 
ὁ δὲ καὶ τοὺς πρὸ αὐτοῦ γενομένους ἀνέστησε. 

The corporal and spiritual death and resurrection of man con- 
trasted with the death and resurrection of Christ. Note the double 
antistrophe, the threefold paronomasia, polyptoton, and the four- 
fold hyperbaton, 50, 438, 42: 

Διπλοῦν ἀπεθάνομεν ἡμεῖς θάνατον, 
οὐκοῦν διπλῆν προσδοκήσωμεν τὴν ἀνάστασιν ; 
Αὐτὸς ἁπλοῦν ἀπέθανε θάνατον, 
διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἁπλῆν ἀνέστη ἀνάστασιν. 

Our burial with Christ in Baptism, and our resurrection with 
Christ through Baptism (Rom. VI, 4); note the homoioteleuton 
at the beginning, and the polyptoton at the end of the cola, 50, 
Ὁ το, γ: 

συνετάφημεν γὰρ αὐτῷ ἐν τῷ Βαπτίσματι, 
καὶ συνηγέρθημεν αὐτῷ διὰ τοῦ Βαπτίσματος. 
The lot of Adam contrasted with that of Job, 52, 400, 6: 
Ti ὠφέλησεν ἐκεῖνον ὁ παράδεισος ; 
ἢ τί ἔβλαψε τοῦτον ἡ κοπρία ; 
The death of Lazarus and of Dives, 49, 72, 33: 
Τί τοίνυν παρέβλαψεν αὐτὸν τὸ βιαίως ἀποθανεῖν ; 
τί δὲ τὸν πλούσιον ὥνησε τὸ μὴ βιαίως ἀποθανεῖν ; 


Note the chiasmus. 


The Church’s idea of a slave and a freeman; observe the 
_ double paronomasia and hyperbaton, 50, 437, 49: 


ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνον οἶδε δοῦλον ἡ Τραφὴ τὸν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ δεδουλωμένον. 


καὶ ἐκεῖνον οἶδεν ἐλεύθερον τὸν ὑπὸ τῆς θείας χάριτος ἠλευθερωμένον. 
St. Paul’s apostolic labors; with paronomasia, 52, 409, 16: 
τὰς ἀκάνθας ἀνατέμνων τῆς ἀσεβείας, 


~ / 
τὰ σπέρματα καταβάλλων τῆς εὐσεβείας. 


50 


The grandeur and perpetual youth of the Church, 52, 402, 6: 
Tov οὐρανοῦ ὑψηλοτέρα ἐστὶ, 
τῆς γῆς πλατυτέρα ἐστίν. 
Οὐδέποτε γηρᾷ, 
ἀεὶ δὲ ἀκμάζει. 
St. Timothy’s solicitude about his soul and his mortification of 
the flesh ; note the hyperbaton in the last colon, 49, 21, 26: 
᾿Ασθενείτω, φησὶ, τὸ σῶμα, 
καὶ μὴ ἀσθενείτω ἡ ψυχὴ, 
χαλινούσθω ἡ σὰρξ, 
καὶ μὴ ἐμποδιζέσθω ὁ πρὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν τῆς ψυχῆς δρόμος. 
The hospitality of Job contrasted with the spiritual charity of 
St.Paul, 50/476, 20: 
‘A γὰρ ἐκεῖνος περὶ τοὺς τὴν σάρκα πεπηρωμένους ἐπεδείκνυτο, 
ταῦτα οὗτος περὶ τοὺς τὴν ψυχὴν λελωβημένους ἔπραττε. 
Contrast between the Feast of the Ascension and Pentecost ; 
note the κύκλος and the chiasmus, 50, 456, 40: 3 
Kai yap ἡ φύσις ἡ ἡμετέρα πρὸ δέκα ἡμέρων εἰς τὸν θρόνον ἀνέβη τὸν 
βασιλικὸν, 
καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον κατέβη σήμερον πρὸς τὴν φύσιν τὴν ἡμετέραν. 
The bounty of the Master and the perfidy of Judas, 40, 
389, 31: 
‘O Δεσπότης ἔτρεφε, 
καὶ ὃ δοῦλος ἐπίπρασκεν. 
Jesus betrayed and Judas the betrayer, 49, 381, 61: 
ὋὉ μὲν yap προδοθεὶς Ἰησοῦς τὴν οἰκουμένην ἔσωσεν, 
ὁ δὲ προδοὺς Ἰούδας τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ψυχὴν ἀπώλεσε: 
καὶ ὁ μὲν προδοθεὶς Ἰησοῦς ἐν δεξᾷ τοῦ Ilatpds ἐν οὐρανοῖς κάθηται, 
ὁ δὲ προδοὺς Ἰούδας ἐν ἅδου νῦν ἐστι. 
The self-abasement of the God-man is expressed in 52, 406, 
ΤΟΣ 
Κεῖται ἐν φάτνῃ ὁ τὴν οἰκουμένην βαστάζων, 
καὶ ἐσπαργάνωται ὁ πάντα περιέπων. 
Contrast between man and God, whom he is bidden to call 
Bather, Sip 44ayen: 
ὁ ynivos τὸν οὐράνιον, 
ὁ θνητὸς τὸν ἀθάνατον, 
ὁ φθαρτὸς τὸν ἄφθαρτον, 
ὁ πρόσκαιρος τὸν αἰώνιον, 


ε Ν \ , Ν \ 4 \ ~ Me / 
O χθὲς καὶ πρθὴν πηλος, τον ονταὰα προ των ALWVWYV θεόν. 


51 


The antithesis degenerates at times into the paradox. As 
already noted in our last chapter, this figure tends to produce 
obscurity rather than clearness, because it contrasts terms which 
are only apparently, but not really contradictory; e.g., note this 
paradox on wealth, 52, 399, 2: 

@npiov ἐστὶν ὃ πλοῦτος" 
ἂν μὲν κατέχηται, φεύγει: 
ἂν δὲ σκορπίζηται, μένει. 

In confirmation(!) of this statement, Chrysostom cites Ps. 
III, 9: "Eoxdpmoe yap, φησὶν, ἔδωκε τοῖς πένησιν, ἡ δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ 
μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. Then he resumes the paradox: 

Σκόρπισον, ἵνα μείνῃ" 
μὴ κατορύξης, ἵνα μὴ φύγῃ. 

This is the kind of verbal jugglery to which the sophist rhetors 
sometimes resorted in order to obtain an oxymoron. Chrysostom 
has applied the two verbs, which in the Sacred Text pertain to two 
different terms, to one term, 7. 6., wealth. 


On the peace of soul that results from the reading of Holy 
ΕΠ ΠΤ; 52,307, 13: 
Ἢ θάλασσα μαίνεται, 
σὺ δὲ μετὰ γαλήνης πλέεις. 
With reference to Matth. XI, 12: “The kingdom of heaven 
. suffereth violence,” 52, 401, 50: 
Τί ἁρπάζεις τὸν πένητα τὸν ἐγκαλοῦντα ; 
“Apracov τὸν Χριστὸν τὸν ἐπαινοῦντα. 
Human nuptials and the nuptials with Christ, 52, 402, 28: 
"OQ καινῶν καὶ παραδόξων πραγμάτων, 
Τάμος παρ᾽ ἡμῖν παρθενίαν λύει, 
γάμος παρὰ Θεῷ παρθενίαν ἀνέστησε. 
Tlap’ ἡμῖν ἡ οὖσα παρθένος, γαμουμένη, οὐκ ἔστι παρθένος" 
παρὰ Χριστῷ ἡ οὖσα πόρνη, γαμουμένη, παρθένος γέγονεν. 
God’s desire and man’s lust, 52, 405, 37: 
ἡ ἐπιθυμία τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ἀπώλεια τῆς ἐπιθυμουμένης" 
ἡ δὲ ἐπιθυμία τοῦ Θεοῦ, σωτηρία τῇ ἐπιθυμουμένῃ. 
Persecution can not destroy the flock of Christ nor the 
branches of the Vine, 50, 616, 33: 
ἐπὶ γῆς TO ποίμνιον, Kal 6 ποιμαίνων ἐν οὐρανῷ" 
ἐπὶ γῆς αἱ κληματίδες, καὶ ἐν οὐρανῷ ἡ ἄμπελος" 
ἂν δὲ ἐκτέμῃς τὰς κληματίδας, πολυπλασιάζεις τὴν ἄμπελον. 


Note the chiasmus. 


52 


Contrast between real war and the spiritual warfare against 
the heretics, 50, ΣΟῚ 1% 
τοιοῦτος Yap ἡμῶν ὃ πόλεμος" 
οὐκ ἀπὸ ζώντων νεκροὺς ἐργάζεται, 
ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ζῶντας κατασκευάζει. 
Death of the body and death of the soul, 49, 71, 42: 
Οὐκ οἶσθα, ὅτι 

οἱ ἐν ἁμαρτίαις ὄντες, κἂν ζῶσιν, ἀπέθανον" 
οἱ δὲ ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ζῶντες, κἂν ἀποθάνωσι, ζῶσι ; 

Contrast between the waters of Creation and the waters of 
Baptism, 50, 439, 42: 

’Eényaye τότε τὰ ὕδατα ἰχθύας ἀλόγους Kal ἀφώνους, 
ἐξέβαλε νῦν ἰχθύας λογικοὺς καὶ πνευματικοὺς, 
ἰχθύας ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἁλιευθέντας. 

The method of the ordinary fishermen and that of the spir- 
itual fishermen, 50, 439, 48: 

οἱ ἁλιεύοντες ἐκ τῶν ὑδάτων ἐκβάλλουσιν, 
ἡμεῖς εἰς. τὰ ὕδατα ἐνεβάλλομεν, 
καὶ οὕτως ἡλιεύσαμεν. 

Note the polyptoton and paronomasia in the above. 

The spiritual victory of the martyrs is represented in this 
series of paradoxes, 50, 708, II: 

Tis οὐκ ἂν ἐκπλαγείη, ὅτι 
ὁ μαστιζόμενος περιγένεται τοῦ μαστίζοντος, 
ὃ δεδεμένος τοῦ λελυμένου, 
O κατακαιόμενος τοῦ καίοντος, 
ὁ ἀποθνήσκων τοῦ ἀναιροῦντος ; 

The power of death and the weakness of man before the 
Redemption contrasted with the strength of man and the weak- 
ness of death which is a result of Christ’s victory over death, 50, 
620, 61: 

Οὐδὲν ἰσχυρότερον ἐκείνου TO πρότερον, ἀγαπητὲ, 
καὶ οὐδὲν ἀσθενέστερον ἡμῶν" 
ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐδέν ἐστιν ἀσθενέστερον ἐκείνου, 
καὶ οὐδὲν ἰσχυρότερον ἡμῶν. 
Εἶδες πῶς ἀρίστη ἡ μετάστασις γέγονε; 
πῶς τὰ ἰσχυρὰ ἀσθενῆ ἐποίησε, 
καὶ τὰ ἀσθενῆ ἰσχυρὰ κατεσκεύασεν ὁ Θεός... 

This kind of antithesis was called conversio. 

Thus we have seen that Christian dogma favored and, to some 
extent, justified the employment of certain figures, the sophistic 


Sa 


character of which is generally recognized. The antithesis is one 
of these. Chrysostom as a rule is moderate and discreet in its 
employment, and it imparts clearness to his exposition of doc- 
trine. Occasionally, however, he formulates antitheses which are 
only verbal and not real, but such instances are exceptional. 


There is one more rhetorical device, classed among the Gor- 
gianic figures, which the rhetors regarded as the complement of 
artistic symmetry, and that is the homovoteleuton, a kind of rhyme, 
produced by the recurrence of the same final syllables at the end 
of succeeding cola. It is a musical and poetical element of style, 
and its effect is very marked, especially when it is combined with 
other Gorgianic figures. Chrysostom uses it lavishly as well in 
asyndetic κόμματα as in lengthy cola. We have already cited nu- 
merous instances in this chapter. The assonance of final syllables 
is evident in the following examples: 56, 267, 4: 


ΝΣ Λ \ λέ Ν Ἅ ε ὃ Canc 4 \ fe 8 , 
τὰ ῥήματα, τὰ βλέμματα, τὰ σχήματα, ἡ βάδισις, ὃ ῥυθμὸς, ἡ διάκρισις, 
Ν / Ν / 
τὰ μέλη τὰ πορνικά. 
Ν ~ Ν ’ Ν \ \ [4 
52, 409, 20: Πρὸς Θρᾷκας, πρὸς Σκύθας, πρὸς Ἰνδοὺς, πρὸς Μαύρους, 
Ν / Ν \ \ / \ / / 
πρὸς Σαρδονίους, πρὸς Γοτθοὺς, πρὸς θηρία ἄγρια, καὶ μετέβαλη πάντα. 
~ ~ Ν ~ Ν ~ ~ a ~ 
50, 494, 17: ἀπὸ τῶν οἰκιῶν, ἀπὸ τῶν πόλεων, ἀπὸ τῶν ἀγρῶν, ἀπὸ τῆς 
~ ~ / \ ~ / Ν ~ 
ἐρημίας, ἀπὸ τῶν “EAAnvor, ἀπὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχόντων, ἀπὸ TOV 
> / Ce he’ ~ ~ we PPX o ~ La ~ A λ 4 Se % Sard 
ἀρχομένων, ἀπὸ τῶν συγγενῶν, ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς, ἀπὸ τῆς θαλάττης, ἀπὸ τῶν 


/ \ ᾿ ζ Ν > θ , 
βασιλευόντων, kau... . ἐξαγριούντων, καὶ. . . . ἐπιτιθεμένων. 


49, 40, 51: 
ov yap περιεσκόπει τὴν τοῦ δεῖνος οἰκίαν, 
οὐδὲ περιειργάζετο τὴν τοῦ δεῖνος οὐσίαν. 

Here two pair of synonyms are employed, and τοῦ δεῖνος is re- 
peated for the sole reason of formulating a parison with homoio- 
teleuton. The same design is apparent in many of the examples 
cited in this chapter. 


50, 645, 42: 

Ei γὰρ οἱ περὶ τὰ θέατρα μεμηνότες, 
καὶ πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἵππων ἅμιλλαν κεχηνότες. 

In the following instance the hyperbaton produces a homoiote- 
leuton also at the beginning ; note the assonance of endings in the 
middle of the cola, 50, 531, 23: 

Ξένους 6 δαίμων τυμβωρυχίας εἰσάγει νόμους, 


\ μι , 3 ~ / 
καὶ καινοὺς ξενηλασίας ἐπινοεῖ τρόπους. 


54 


In the following example there is an excessive use of asso- 
nance in final syllables, 52, 396, 25: 

Ὥσπερ γὰρ τὸν ὠμὸν Kal ἀπάνθρωπον ἀποστρέφεται καὶ μισεῖ, 
οὕτω τὸν ἐλεήμονα καὶ φιλάνθρωπον προσίεται καὶ φιλεῖ. 

52, 411, 48: 

εἰς τὰ παρόντα, Kal εἰς τὰ μέλλοντα" 
εἰς τὰ ὁρώμενα, καὶ εἰς τὰ ἀκουόμενα" 
εἰς τὰ δεδομένα, καὶ εἰς τὰ πιστευόμενα. 
52, 401, 41: 

Τῶν ἀλλοτρίων μὴ ἐπιθύμει, 

τὴν χήραν μὴ γυμνώσῃς, 

τὸν ὄρφανον μὴ ἁρπάσῃς, 

τὴν οἰκίαν μὴ λάβῃς 

The effect of the homoioteleuton is heightened by epanaphora 

in/50, 590,/11: | 
Οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκεῖ μεταβολῆς εἰκῶν 
οὐκ ἔστι τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα, 
πάντα δὲ πεπηγότα καὶ ἀκίνητα, 
πάντα βέβαια καὶ ἱδρυμένα, 
πάντα ἄφθαρτα καὶ ἀθάνατα 
πάντα aknpata καὶ ἀεὶ διαμένοντα. 

The following prolonged series of homoioteleuta is part of a 
passage quoted in our second chapter (p. 26), in which Chrysos- 
tom denounces those preachers who “idly busy themselves about 
beautiful expressions and the composition and harmony of their 
sentences, in order that they may please, not profit” their hearers. 
This example well illustrates that Chrysostom’s theory is some- 
times at variance with his practice, 60, 226, 12: 

ὅπως ἥσωμεν, οὐχ ὅπως ὠφελήσωμεν, 

ὅπως θαυμασθῶμεν, οὐχ ὅπως διδάξωμεν, 

ὅπως τέρψωμεν, οὐχ ὅπως κατανύξωμεν, 

ὅπως κροτηθῶμεν, καὶ ἐπαίνου τυχόντες ἀπέλθωμεν, 
οὐχ ὅπως τὰ ἤθη ῥυθμίσωμεν. 

Assonance of the final syllables at the beginning of the cola 
heightens the effect of this series of homoioteleuta, 50, 447, 54: 

ὅταν καὶ ὄνων ἀναισθητότεροι, 
καὶ βοῶν ἀλογώτεροι, 
καὶ χελιδόνος καὶ τρυγόνος ἀγνωμονέστεροι, 
καὶ μυρμῆκων ἀσυνετώτεροι, 
καὶ λίθων. ἀναισθητότεροι, 


καὶ ὄφεων ἴσοι φαινώμεθα. 


ὃ 9 


A similar series occurs, 51, 44, 38. 


A very long series of rhetorical questions and answers on the 
sufferings and the fortitude of Job, forming the figure called 
hypophora, occurs in 52, 400, 9. The artistic effect of the numer- 
ous homoioteleuta is increased by the parisa and double epanaph- 
ora. Note the chiasmus in the last six cola, which is designed 
to relieve the monotony of this excessively long series of parisa: 

Od τὰ χρήματα αὐτοῦ ἔλαβεν ; 
᾿Αλλὰ τὴν εὐσέβειαν οὐκ ἐσύλησεν. 
Οὐ τοὺς παῖδας αὐτοῦ ἥρπασεν ; 
᾿Αλλὰ τὴν πίστιν οὐκ ἐσάλευσεν. 
Οὐ τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ διέρρηξεν ; 
᾿Αλλὰ τὸν θησαυρὸν οὐχ εὗρεν. 
Οὐ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ ὥπλισεν ; 
᾿Αλλὰ τὸν στρατιώτην οὐχ ὑπεσκέλισεν. 
Οὐκ ἔβαλε τόξα καὶ βέλη ; 
᾿Αλλὰ τραύματα οὐκ ἐδέξατο. 
Προσῆἤγαγε μηχανῆματα, 
ἀλλὰ τὸν πύργον οὐκ ἔσεισεν | 
ἐπήγαγε κύματα, 
ἀλλὰ τὸ πλοῖον οὐ κατεπόντισε. 

Another series of homoioteleuta of monotonous length occurs 
52, 408, 55: 

χωλοὺς διώρθου, γυμνοὺς ἐνέδυε, νεκροὺς ἤγειρε, 

λεπροὺς ἐκαθάριζε, διάβολον ἐπεστόμιξζε, δαίμονας ἀπέπνιγε, 

τῷ Θεῷ διελέγετο, Ἐκκλησίαν ἐφύτευσε, ναοὺς κατέσκαψε, 

βωμοὺς ἀνέτρεψε, τὴν κακίαν ἔλυσε, τὴν ἀρετὴν ἐφύτευσε, 
τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἀγγέλους ἐποίησε. 

We close this chapter on the Gorgianic figures with the con- 
viction that Chrysostom’s sophistic education has left a deep 
impression on his style, that manifests itself in well-balanced 
periods of symmetrical structure, some of which exhibit a sharp 
contrast of thought, and to which a musical rhythm is imparted 
by the homoioteleuton. In addition, we have observed that these 
figures are often combined with epanaphora, antistrophe, parono- 
masia, arsis, and asyndeton, and that, in order to obtain parisa, 
Chrysostom often has recourse to pleonasm. Chrysostom manipu- 
lates these very artificial refinements of style with the ease and 
sure skill of a master, and with a fondness that makes him exceed 
at times the limits of artistic moderation. 


COP Le ay, 


THE METAPHOR 


We have had ample opportunity in the preceding pages to note 
that one of the salient features of sophistic rhetoric is its love for 
showy ornament. To the sophist an idea was serviceable and 
good only in as far as it lent itself to oratorical embellishment. 


Now, there is perhaps no figure of speech better calculated to 
give a rich color to style than the metaphor. It easily takes first 
rank among the tropes, to which class it is assigned by the rheto- 
ricians. The metaphor signifies the transfer of a word from its 
literal or accepted meaning to a figurative sense. 


Skilfully and discreetly employed it forms one of the most 
attractive graces of style. But as in the case of. other rhetorical 
devices, so here also the sophists were not content to remain 
within the bounds of sobriety and true art. Hermogenes remarks * 
that the excessive use of tropes was one of the vices of the ὑπόξυλοι 
σοφισταί. 

The oratory of the pulpit, more than any other, demands the 
use of metaphorical language. It is the preacher’s task to make 
the abstract and spiritual ideas of theology in some sort tangible 
to his audience by giving to these ideas color and substance and 
sensible qualities. If this is true in general, it applies with double 
force to the eastern peoples, who are more imaginative than the 
nations of the west. Chrysostom was himself an Oriental, en- 
dowed with a rich and bold fancy. He realized that, in order to 
reach his hearers, he must needs appeal to their imaginative sense, 
and lead them to the perception of the immaterial by illustrations 
from the material. And indeed, a cursory glance at his sermons 
will show that he is most lavish in the employment of metaphors. 
It was the rich imagery of his style which above all fascinated his 
oriental audience, and helped to make him the most popular orator 
_ of the Eastern Church. 


However, this gift of graphic representation, which constitutes 
one of the excellencies of his art, is likewise responsible for one 
of its most serious blemishes, an immoderate redundance of 
images. Like the quickly shifting colors of a kaleidoscope, they 


1 Spengel, περὶ ἰδεῶν, 292, το ff. 
56 


57 


follow one another in rapid succession. There is no thought of 
selecting what is most suitable, and the main idea is often lost 
sight of in the long train of images that are intended to illustrate 
it. It is this fondness for images that especially reveals Chrysos- 
tom’s intellectual kinship with the sophists. This kinship becomes 
still more evident as we behold the sophistic sources from which 
he draws many of his metaphors, and the distinctly sophistic 
qualities of others. Before treating these we shall class his meta- 
phors under general heads. 

The purpose of the metaphor is to materialize an idea, to make 
it in some sort visible to the eye. This is generally done by sub- 
stituting the concrete for the abstract. 

A very graphic example of the substitution of a concrete for 
an abstract idea occurs in 52, 394, 54, where the prosperity of the 
unfortunate Eutropius is depicted as “the harlot-face which a few 
days ago was radiant, looking uglier than any wrinkled old 
woman, and denuded of its enamel and pigments by the action of 
adversity as by a sponge.” The Feast of Pentecost is styled, 50, 
463, 48: “the metropolis of feasts.” Youth is called, “a pyre 
quickly kindled,” 40, 21, 18. 

The abstract terms of philosophy and theology are material- 
ized by joining them with a concrete verb, adjective, or noun, e.g., 
50, 266, 14: πονηρίας βάραθρον; 52, 395, 33: τὸν στάχυν κομῶντα τῆς 
συμπαθείας ; 52, 443, 57: “the flower of liberty”; 52, 404, 26: 
ἀναβαίνω τῷ πτερῷ τοῦ νοήματος ; 49, 37, 47: ἑαυτοὺς πτερώσωμεν ταῖς 
ἐλπίσι; 56, 267, 40: κάμινον ἔρωτος . . . . περιφέρειν ; 50, 474, 17: τὰς 
ἀκάνθας τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων ἀνασπῶν, καὶ τὸν λόγον τῆς εὐσεβείας 
κατασπείρων ; 50, 615, 32: TOV χειμάρρουν τοῦ κηρύγματος ; 50, 573, 14: 
“the spark of religion” ai sey 468, 42: τὰ ἄλογα τῆς διανοίας σκιρτῆματα. 

A concrete idea is sometimes replaced by another concrete 
term which is more graphic, e.g., having enumerated the past 
pleasures and honors of Eutropius, Chrysostom pictures them in a 
series of elegant metaphors, 52, 391, 48: “They were all mere 
visions of the night, and dreams which have vanished with the 
dawn of day: they were spring flowers, and when the spring was 
over they all withered: they were a shadow which has passed 
away—they were a smoke which has dispersed, bubbles which 
have burst, cobwebs which have been rent in pieces.” St. Paul’s 
voice is called, 49, 15, 1, “the celestial trumpet, the spiritual lyre.” 
The bodies of the martyrs are termed, “springs, roots and oint- 
ments,” 50, 600, 51. In 50, 505, 33, St. Paul is styled τὸν ἀνδριάντα 
τῆς ἀρετῆς ; Eutropius, the fallen, fugitive consul of the Empire, 15 


58 


called “a tree, stripped of all its leaves and shaken to its very roots 
by the storm of adversity,” 52, 391, 37. 

The names of animals are sometimes used to designate men, 
e.g., the hope is expressed that Flavian, the bishop of Antioch, 
who had been sent to appease the wrath of the emperor Theodo- 
sius, will be able “το convert the lion into a mild lamb,” 49, 49, 39. 
The Virgin-Martyrs Sts. Bernice and Prosdoce are represented 
as “two heifers that gladly bore the yoke of martyrdom,” 50, 640, 
30. St. Roman, Martyr, is represented as converting “gazelles 
and deer into bold lions” by his exhortations, 50, 609, 13. Simi- 
larly St. Paul is said to have made sheep out of wolves, and doves 
out of kites and hawks, 50, 474, 59. The same saint is described 
as falling “into the very jaws of the lion,” ἢ. δ. of wicked men, 
50, 476, 20. The devil too is called “a wild beast,” 50, 608, 13. 

The boldest kind of metaphor consists in attributing life and 
action to inanimate objects, e.g., 52, 444, 50: “What need of 
words? ‘The rocks cry out, the walls send forth a voice.” In 50, 
496, 8, Chrysostom says: Kal ταῦτα αὐτὴ ἡ τῶν πραγμάτων ἀλήθεια βοᾷ, 
and he continues, “There is no need of words or speech, since the 
whole world everywhere sends forth a voice, the cities, the fields, 
the earth, the sea, the inhabited and desert places, yea, even the 
very mountain tops.” In 50, 607, 20, the nature of disaster is said 
to be able to “incline even the rocks to pity.” In 52, 392, 58, the 
horse-races are said to have whetted the sword against Eutropius. 

There are certain metaphors, which, without being peculiar to 
the sophists, form part of the common literary property, being 
borrowed mostly from the poets, 6. g.: 56, 265, 44: ποικίλος ἀστέρων 

οὖς χορός; 50, 647, 53: τῶν λίθων τὰς νιφάδας (Cf. Aesch. Fr. 
109) ; 50, 475, 59: μυρίας νιφάδας πειρασμῶν ; the marching in proces- 
sion to the graves of the martyrs is called: χορεύειν, 50, 699, 50; 
the martyrs entering heaven are represented as joining the choir 
of the Blessed, who had been their συγχορεύται on earth, 50, 710, 
43;° the plenitude of the Holy Spirit is designated as χορηγίαν, 
52, 408, 48. 

A metaphor that occurs frequently in some of the sophists is 
ὠδίνω, used in a figurative sense. Chrysostom applies the term to 
Julian the Apostate, plotting a persecution against the Christians: 
50, 574, 1: ὠδίνοντος ἐκείνου τὸν πόλεμον ἐξενεγκεῖν. He likewise de- 
scribes the storm of persecution as: πικρά twa ὠδίνων ναυάγια, 52, 
549, 22.° 


2 Cf. Guignet, 139, on Gregory Nazianzen’s use of the same term. 
8 Cf Guignet, 139. 


59 


The metaphors, however, which present strong evidence of 
Chrysostom’s profane education are the so-called technical terms 
pertaining to military science, the athletic games, the hippodrome, 
and navigation. There can be no doubt as to their profane origin. 
Their popularity among all classes of Greek society was universal. 
Chrysostom in his liberal use of these terms rivals the most 
thoroughgoing of the rhetors. 


1. Metaphors borrowed from military science: 


The struggle of the soul against the flesh and its passions is 
styled, μάχη, πόλεμος, παράταξις, 50, 483, 26. Referring to the 
deacon John, surnamed Marcus, whom St. Paul refused to take 
with him on one of his journeys, because John had deserted him 
on a former occasion (Acts, XIII, 13; XV, 37, 38), Chrysostom 
says, 50, 508, 5: Aw καὶ δικαίως ἐξετέμνετο, ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ τάξας ἑαυτὸν τῷ 
μετώπῳ τῆς φάλαγγος, σφόδρα ἀνάνδρως εἱστῆκει. In Book IV On the 
Priesthood, Chrysostom demands that the Christian preacher be 
skilled in all the methods of warfare, in order to be able to repel 
the attacks of the enemies of the Church, and that he “be at once 
both archer and slinger, captain and general, in the ranks and in 
command, on foot and on horseback, in sea-fight and in siege,” 
48, 666, 24. The devil’s attacks on Job, and the latter’s victory 
are described thus, 52, 400, 13: “Did he not arm his wife against 
him? yes, but he did not overthrow the soldier. Did he not hurl 
arrows and darts at him? yes, but he received no wounds. He 
advanced his engines, but could not shake the tower ; he conducted 
his billows against him, but did not sink the ship.” Another group 
of military, naval, and athletic terms sets forth the victorious 
struggles of the Church, 52, 397, 60: “Such might has the 


she is wounded, yet sinks not under her wounds; tossed by waves, 
yet not submerged; vexed by storms, yet suffers no shipwreck ; 
she wrestles and is not worsted, fights {(πυκτεύει) but is not van- 
quished.” 


One of the persecutors of the Church is described thus, 50, 
644, 29: τύραννος eis οὐρανὸν τοξεύειν ἐπιχειρῶν." The mouths of the 
martyrs, speaking in defence of the Faith are styled quivers 
_ (βελοθήκη), bearing many arrows, which are shot at the demon’s 
head, 50, 575, 52. Julian the Apostate, persecuting the Christians 
by covert methods, is represented as, τὸν πόλεμον ἀκροβολιζόμενος, 


4 Cf. Herod. IV, 94, who relates that the Getai, when it thundered and 
lightened, aimed their arrows at the sky, uttering threats against their god. 


60 


50, 573, 39. On Good Friday Chrysostom bids the faithful: 
ἀλαλάξωμεν, καθάπερ στρατιῶται, τὴν ἐπινίκιον wdnv, 49, 396, 50. 

2. Metaphors drawn from the athletic games: 

The magnificent splendor of these religious festivals, regarded 
as events of national importance, and the enthusiastic admiration 
of the public for the victors of Olympia, who were celebrated in 
song and verse, lent to these figures that dramatic and epic color 
which was so eagerly coveted by the sophists. Taken over by the 
Christian panegyrists after the example of St. Paul (Tim. II, 4), 
they maintained in the religious domain their ancient popularity, 
and gradually became so common that they almost lost their fig- 
urative character, ἀθλητῆς and ἀγωνιστῆς becoming equivalent to 
martyr. 

Job is called μέγας ἀθλητῆς, 50, 476, 11. St. Paul is described as, 
πελάγει πυκτεύων Kal AYO... . Kal κρυμῷ, Kal πανταχοῦ ὑπὲρ τὰ 
σκάμματα πηδῶν, 50, 475, 62. The religious services in honor of a 
martyr are termed θεωρία ἀγωνισμάτων, 50, 665, 5, and the faithful 
attend these services in order to learn ἀγωνίζεσθαι, παγκρατιάζειν. 
The martyrs are described as looking up with eager eyes to their 
ἀγωνοθέτης (1. e., God), 50, 647, 51. St. Ignatius, Martyr, is styled 
Ὀλυμπιονίκης, 50, 606, 57, and God, who called him from Antioch 
to Rome, where he was martyred, is represented as, μακροτέρους 
αὐτῷ τιθεὶς τοὺς διαύλους τοῦ δρόμου, 50, 592, 40, and the Christians 
who met him on his journey ἤλειφον τὸν ἀθλητὴν, ib. 49, and were 
consoled to see him so eagerly ἐπὶ θάνατον τρέχοντα, 1b. 53. Chrys- 
ostom remarks that at the feasts of the rich one can see, στάδιον καὶ 
ἅμιλλαν διαβολικῆν, 50, 435, 17, and that the rich man affords the 
devil many occasions for attack (AaBds, grip, hold), 49, 45, 55. 
The devil is said to grapple with us (συμπλέκεσθαι), thus giving us 
opportunities to win crowns, 50, 441,1. His own work of preach- 
ing and instructing the faithful Chrysostom characterizes thus: 
ἀλείφοντες ὑμᾶς καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν, 50, 440, 44. Speaking of the 
great number of martyrs, he says: πολλοὶ of ἀνακηρυττόμενοι καὶ 
στεφανούμενοι, 50, 587, 33, and, 7b. 38: “they run the race of piety,” 
and again, ib. 44: “both men and women strip for these contests 
(πρὸς τοὺς ἀγῶνας ἀπεδύσαντο τούτους). The angels and his six older 
brothers are described as looking down from heaven upon the 
glorious spectacle (θέατρον) of the martyrdom of the youngest of 
the Maccabees: “Like judges in the Olympic games they sat 
crowned, not acting as arbiters of the struggle, but exhorting the 
champion to win the crown,” 50, 624, 26. The theatrical charac- 


61 


ter of these pagan images, which are applied with little propriety 
to the scenes of martyrdom, denotes strong sophistic influence. 


The following metaphor on St. Ignatius, Martyr, 50, 588, 32, 
reveals the studied ingenuity of the sophist: “The grace of the 
Spirit has woven a triple garland and bound with it that sacred 
brow, or rather I should say, a manifold one, for if one would 
carefully unwind each single garland, it would be found putting 
forth many others. And if you will, I shall first come to the 
panegyric of his episcopacy. Does not this seem to be but one 
garland? Well, let us unwind it, and you shall see two, three, and 
even more garlands sprouting forth from it.” 


3. Metaphors borrowed from the hippodrome: 


That the Greeks were possessed of a veritable mania for the 
horse and chariot races needs no proof. The popularity of this 
pastime would make metaphors drawn from that source very 
much appreciated. In his panegyric On Sts. Juventinus and Max- 
minus, Martyrs, 50, 571, 47, Chrysostom says: “Recently Blessed 
Babylas and the three youths gathered us here. Today a pair 
(ξυνωρίς, a pair of horses) of holy soldiers has marshalled in 
battle-array the host of Christ; τότε ἅρμα (1. 6., a team of four 
horses drawing a chariot: referring to St. Babylas, and the three 
Jewish youths who were thrown into the fiery furnace), viv ξυνωρὶς 
μαρτύρων. In his panegyric On St. Pelagia, Virgin-Martyr, 50, 
579, 8: “Henceforth maidens of tender age can leap against the 
goads of Hades (1. e¢., death) and suffer no harm.” Relating how 
St. Timothy mortified his body, Chrysostom says: “The steed that 
was unmanageable and restive he curbed with much vehemence, 
until he had tamed him of his wanton tricks; until he had made 
him docile; and delivered him under entire control into the hands 
of that reason which is the charioteer,” 49, 21, 22. 


A similar metaphor, but much more elaborate, occurs in his 
sermon Against the Games and the Theatres, 56, 265, 28. The 
studious care with which Chrysostom works out the details of the 
image is characteristic of the sophists’ method. Having rebuked 
the faithful for attending the chariot races on Good Friday, in- 
stead of coming to church, he says: “If you wished to see a race 
of irrational animals, why did you not yoke together your irra- 
tional passions, anger and concupiscence, and lay on them the yoke 
of philosophy, sweet and light, and give them for a charioteer 
right reason, and drive towards the goal of your heavenly voca- 
tior, not from vice to vice, but from earth to heaven? This kind 


62 


of chariot race, besides giving pleasure, would be very beneficial.” 
This poetical picture is strongly reminiscent of Plato’s famous 
illustration (Phaedrus, 246), in which Reason is represented as a 
charioteer driving a chariot drawn by two horses, one of an 
aspiring, the other of a base nature. 


4. Metaphors taken from the sea and from navigation: 


It is difficult to determine how far these metaphors are of pro- 
fane origin, because we do not know to what extent they were 
current in the ecclesiastical literature of Chrysostom’s time. 


Poverty is called λιμὴν ἀκύμαντος καὶ τεῖχος ἀσφαλές, 52, 395, 18. 
To reach heaven with a rich store of merits is expressed thus: 
μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς ἐμπορίας εἰς ἐκεῖνον καταπλεῦσαι TOV λιμένα, 50, 577, 5. 
On St. Eustathius, Martyr: “He has crossed the strait (εὔριπον) of 
life’s cares, he is free from the tumult of the waves, he has sailed 
into the quiet and tranquil harbor .. . . as if standing on a rock 
or high cliff, he laughs at the waves,” 50, 597, 63. The calamity at 
Antioch is called a χειμών, and the hope is expressed that God will 
soon restore the calm (γαλήνην), 49, 36, 34. The gathering of the 
faithful in church is termed: θάλαττα εὐρύχωρος ἐμπεπλησμένη, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ 
ταραττομένη τῇ ζάλῃ τῶν ἀνέμων, 52, 435, 42. Chrysostom’s farewell 
sermon to his flock on the eve of his first exile begins with the 
stirring metaphor: “Many are the billows, mighty is the swell; but 
we have no fear of being submerged, for we stand upon the rock. 
Let the sea rage, it cannot wash away the rock; let the billows 
roar, they cannot sink the bark of Jesus,” 52, 427, 45. Referring 
to Theophilus of Alexandria, who together with other ecclesiastics 
had brought about his banishment, Chrysostom in the sermon on 
his return from exile says: of ναῦται μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν καθ᾽ ὑμῶν γεγόνασιν, 
οἵτινες TOV πόλεμον τῷ πλοίῳ κατεσκεύασεν, 52, 446, 45. 

We have already noted as ἃ sophistic trait of Chrysostom’s art 
the theatrical tone of some of his metaphors describing the scenes 
of martyrdom as a sort of dramatic spectacle. This tendency 
appears also in his employment of the words δρᾶμα and τραγῳδία 
to denote scenes of a pathetic nature, and in his use of the term 
προσωπεῖον in a figurative sense, e.g., the term τραγῳδία is applied, 
49, 147, 54, to the sacrifice of Jephte’s daughter (Judg. XI, 37) ; 
to the martyrdom of the Maccabees, 50, 621, 50; to the sentence 
pronounced on some criminals, 49, 138, 17. Speaking of those 
Christian women who, like St. Pelagia, took their lives to pre- 
serve their virginity, he says: “The time was full of such dramas,” 
50, 580, 62. In a rhetorical apostrophe addressed to Abraham, 


63 


Chrysostom pretends to find fault with him for advising Sara to 
deceive the ruler of Egypt by representing herself as Abraham’s 
sister, and exclaims: “You even weave a plot with your wife, and 
play a part with her in the drama of adultery (συνυποκρίνῃ τὸ δρᾶμα 
τῆς ὕβρεως) |!” And a few lines further: “You prompt her to don 
the mask of a sister!” 50, 630, 53 ff. Referring to friends who 
proved false, he says: “They changed their mask,’ 52, 399, 15, 
and: “The actors were unmasked (ἠλέγχθη τὰ προσωπεῖα) ,᾿᾿ 52, 400, 
37. In another place, 50, 531, 33: “The demon raised his mask 
and openly (γυμνῇ τῇ κεφαλῇ) took his stand against the received 
laws of nature.” ® 


The straining after dramatic effect asserts itself in the fol- 
lowing personification of Wealth as a disloyal servant, 49, 39, 35: 
“Nothing is so faithless as wealth ; of which I have often said, and 
will not cease to say, that it is a runaway, thankless servant, 
having no fidelity ; and should you throw over him ten thousand 
chains, he will make off dragging his chains after him. Fre- 
quently, indeed, have those who possessed him shut him up with 
bars and doors, placing their slaves round about for guards. But 
he has overpersuaded these very servants, and has fled away to- 
gether with his guards; dragging his keepers after him like a 
chain, so little security was there in his custody.” Hom. VIII 
against the Anomoeans, 48, 767, opens with this declamatory pas- 
sage: “Yesterday we returned from the warfare and battle with 
the heretics bearing gory arms and the sword of the word blood- 
red, not from the slaughter of human bodies, but from the refuta- 
tion of false reasonings.”’ 


A large contingent of Chrysostom’s metaphors are taken from 
Sacred Scripture ; such are the allegories referring to the Church 
as a flock of sheep, as a bride, a kingdom, as a body whose head 15 
Christ, and whose members are the faithful; to the priest as a 
physician etc. These figures are beside the purpose of this study 
which aims to show only the profane and sophistic elements in 
Chrysostom’s rhetoric. It is very interesting, however, to see how 
he transforms these figures, giving them a touch of the sensational 
and paradoxical, which is a distinctly sophistic trait. We have 
already referred to his bold and shocking metaphor which repre- 
sents human nature as a harlot with God as her lover (p. 39). 
This allegory is probably borrowed from the Old Testament 
(Jerem. III; Ezech. XV1; Osee II and III), where the Jewish 


5On Gregory of Nyssa, cf. Méridier, 108; on Gregory Nazianzen, 
Guignet, 148. 


64 


people in their disloyalty to God are likened to a prostitute. 
Chrysostom says verbatim (Hom. II on Eutropius, 52, 405, 29): 
ὁ τοσοῦτος καὶ τηλικοῦτος ἐπεθύμησε πόρνης. Πόρνης ἐπεθύμει ὁ Θεός: 
Nai, πόρνης. He explains: “I speak of our human nature under 
that name.” God is then described as coming to the harlot in 
order to convert her into a virgin by espousing her. The sequel 
reveals that Chrysostom is speaking of the mystery of the Incar- 
nation, but the allegory is pursued with such sophistic boldness, 
that Chrysostom’s caution to the faithful to understand it in a 
spiritual sense hardly mitigates the shocking character of the 
image. The latter is dropped for a while (ib. 406, 23), and 
human nature is represented successively as a plant placed in 
Paradise, as a sheep carried by the Shepherd, as a vessel of clay 
holding a treasure (ἢ. 4., the Holy Spirit). After an interval of 
about one column the original figure is resumed (7b. 407, 39). 
Christ gives his Bride an earnest (ἀρραβῶνα), a dowry (προῖκα), 
gifts of betrothal (μνῆστρα) (1b. 408, 32). The frequent dialogues 
between Christ and his Bride give a strong dramatic color to this 
whole passage. 


We have already, in the preceding pages (36 ff.), presented nu- 
merous examples showing how the metaphor is a fruitful source 
of the paradox. Here are some instances not yet quoted which 
will further illustrate this, e.g., a series of metaphors on the ban- 
ishment of St. Meletius from his see of Antioch, 50, 517, 20: 
“And indeed, what then took place was admirable (παράδοξον) : 
The shepherd was expelled, but the sheep were not scattered ; the 
pilot was ejected, but the bark did not sink; the husbandman was 
persecuted, but the vine bore more fruit!” 


On the Egyptian Martyrs, 50, 697, 13: “And they were sen- 
tenced to the mines, to dig for metal, they who were more precious 
than gold, and possessors of a gold not material, nor dug up by 
the hands of convicts, but acquired by the labor of faithful Chris- 
tians. εἰργάζοντο μέταλλα οἱ μυρίων γέμοντες θησαυρῶν." 

On Sts. Juventinus and Maximinus, who were beheaded at 
midnight, 50, 576, 20: ἐν μέσῳ σκότει of φωστῆρες ἐξήῆγοντο καὶ 
ἀπετέμνοντο. This is an artificial specimen. The metaphor φωστῆρες 
is introduced solely for the sake of a contrast with σκότει. There 
is also here a jumble of the metaphorical (φωστῆρες) with the 
literal sense (dzreréuvovro). 


The most strongly sophistic metaphor we have found in Chrys- 
astm #s Gorgias’ notorious paradox of ἔμψυχοι τάφοι (for vul- 


65 


tures), already discussed among the oxymora (p. 36). Chrysos- 
tom applies the figure to the faithful, stating that they are “living 
graves” of St. Eustathius, Martyr. 


The labored ingenuity of the rhetor is revealed in a far-fetched 
metaphor on St. Paul, 50, 474, 46. He is described in a contrast 
with Noe as saving the whole world in an ark which he con- 
structed out of his epistles, using them instead of planks. 


It is amusing to note the specious arguments with which 
Chrysostom tries to justify some of his exaggerated metaphors, 
e.g., the mother of the Maccabees is extolled as having brought 
forth an entire Church of martyrs, 50, 622, 4: “The seven youths 
were only seven martyrs, and the body of their mother added to 
theirs was only one, but it was equivalent to twice seven martyrs, 
both because she suffered martyrdom with regard to each one, 
and because she rendered them martyrs (1. 6., by her exhorta- 
tions). Thus we can truly say that she brought forth an entire 
Church of martyrs.” 


From the fact that God allowed St. Peter, whom he set to rule 
the whole world, and to whom he entrusted the keys of heaven, 
to tarry a long time at Antioch, Chrysostom concludes: “Thus our 
city appears as tantamount to the whole world.” 50, 591, 50. 

In his panegyric On St. Roman, Martyr, who, after his tongue 
had been plucked out, miraculously retained his speech and con- 
tinued to reproach the tyrant, Chrysostom exclaims, 50, 614, 2: 
θέαμα καινὸν καὶ παράδοξον: σάρκινος σαρκίνοις ἀσάρκως φθεγγόμενος. 
Then he addresses the tongue as a “forerunner of the martyr,” 
and breaks forth into a rhapsodic strain: “Oh tongue which pre- 
ceded the soul of the martyr to the hosts of the martyrs (in 
heaven)! Oh mouth which brought forth a hidden martyr! Oh 
tongue having for its altar the mouth! Oh mouth whose sacri- 
ficial victim was the tongue! Oh noble martyr, we knew not that 
thou hadst thy mouth for a temple, in which thou didst sacrifice 
thy kindred tongue as an admirable (παράδοξον) lamb!” Chrysos- 
tom then addresses a lengthy apostrophe to the martyr, repeating 
some of the above figures and adding: ἔλαβες εἰς τὸ φθέγγεσθαι 
πλῆκτρον, σὺ δὲ αὐτὸ τεμνόμενον ἄσταχυν ἀνέδειξα. He then goes on 
to say that the tongue, like Isaac of old, lay patiently on the altar, 
and did not recoil from the knife, but received the blow with 
pleasure (7b. 40). 

This is a genuine sophistic tour de force. The images are so 
bold and overwrought as to border on the ridiculous. It is a fine 


66 


specimen of the extravagant and exaggerated declamations of the 
rhetors.® 


In the beginning of this chapter we remarked that one of the 
serious faults of Chrysostom’s style was his immoderate redun- 
dance of metaphors. In this respect he seems to surpass even the 
most radical sophists. In 52, 416, 14, we found a series of ten 
metaphors on wealth, which is styled: “An ungrateful, runaway 
slave, a cruel murderer, an untamable beast, a precipice sheer on 
every side, a rock continually washed by the billows, a sea agi- 
tated by innumerable winds, a tyrant harshly imperious, a despot 
more cruel than a barbarian, an implacable enemy, an irrecon- 
cilable foe.’ Note that all these terms are concrete. This tedious 
litany is followed immediately by another series of twelve meta- 
phors on poverty, ib. 23. Cf.also 50, 685, 40, a series of sixteen 
metaphors on the martyrs’ death, four of which are concrete and 
the rest abstract terms. These endless enumerations are nothing 
but an empty display of rhetorical skill, which, though wearisome 
to a modern reader, must have been highly acceptable to Chrysos- 
tom’s audience. 


For the close of this chapter we have reserved a very remark- 
able specimen of turgid sophistic declamation. It occurs at the 
end of a long comparison in which St. Roman, Martyr, is likened 
to a pilot who sees the storm of persecution rising against the ship 
of the Church, and going up to Jesus, who is asleep in the ship, he 
raises the cry of the Apostles (Matth. VIII, 25): “Lord, save us, 
we perish!” and then Chrysostom continues, 50, 615, 59: “Pirates 
surround your vessel, wolves beset the flock, robbers are under- 
mining your bridal-chamber, adulterous hissings (συρίγματα) 
sound about your bride, once more the serpent is breaking into 
(τοιχωρυχεῖ) Paradise, the foundation-rock of the Church is 
shaking, but cast down from heaven the evangelical anchor, and 
set fast the shaking rock: Lord, save us, we perish!” What a 
contrast between the simple, pathetic cry: “Lord, save us, we 
perish,” and its bombastic paraphrase! The profusion of images 
is bewildering. The Church is pictured as a ship, a flock, a bridal- 
chamber, a bride, as Paradise, a foundation-stone ; her enemies as 
pirates, wolves, robbers, a serpent ; finally God is besought to cast 
down an anchor to fasten the shaking rock! an incongruous 
metaphor indeed. 


6 Cf. the bombastic apostrophe which the father of Cynaegirus ad- 
dresses to the hand of his son in Polemo’s Declamation A, 35 ff. 





67 


Our investigation of Chrysostom’s use of the metaphor has 
shown us several additional points of direct contact between his 
oratory and the sophistic rhetoric. The liberal use of certain 
metaphors of established profane origin, the sophistic fashion in 
which metaphors taken from a profane source are treated, the 
labored ingenuity, extravagance, and exaggeration which marks 
certain others, and finally his immoderate redundance of images, 
all betray Chrysostom’s intimate relationship with the sophist 
rhetors. The studies which Meéridier and Guignet have made of 
Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory Nazianzen on this same point 
enable us to state that in the prodigal exuberance of his metaphors 
Chrysostom by far surpasses his illustrious contemporaries. 


ΓΕΑ ΝΥ. 


THE COMPARISON 


The keen sense for the graphic and picturesque which mani- 
fests itself in the metaphors of Chrysostom appears in an even 
more striking manner in his comparisons. The comparison does 
not differ essentially from the metaphor. Both are founded on 
the resemblance between two objects. In the metaphor this like- 
ness is not directly expressed but implied. In the comparison it 
is formally stated. The metaphor is thus by its very nature a 
more subtle and powerful figure ; whereas the comparison, plainly 
manifesting itself as an image, has more of an ornamental char- 
acter. The oriental peoples are of course more given to this 
sparkling ornament than the Europeans. As already stated, 
Chrysostom was an Oriental, a Syrian, and naturally comparisons 
are very numerous in his sermons. Like the sophists of the 
Asiatic schools, Chrysostom prefers comparisons of the gaudy 
and showy kind to the more discreet and restrained types found 
in the classic orators. 

Chrysostom himself justifies his use of this figure in the fol- 
lowing two passages: Commenting on St. Paul, Hebr. V, 11: “Of 
whom (7.e., Melchisedech) we have much to say and hard to be 
intelligibly uttered: because you are become weak to hear,” he 
says (56, 165, 32) : “Evidently it 15 not the nature of the language 
but the ignorance of the audience which makes difficult, yea very 
difficult, what in itself is easy..... When we have the care 
of the sick we must not set before them a meal prepared at hap- 
hazard, but a variety of dishes, so that the patient may choose 
what suits his taste. Thus we must proceed in the spiritual repasts 
(1. δ., preaching). Since we are weak, the sermon must be varied 
and embellished; it must contain comparisons, proofs, para- 
phrases, and the like, so that we may select what will profit our 
soul.” Again, in 57, 199, 13, he points out how Christ employed 
parables to make the divine truths more acceptable to the Jews by 
inserting in his discourse terms that were in common use, such as, 
thrashing-floor, harvest, winepress, vineyard, field etc. Here 
Chrysostom’s theoretical view on the purpose of the comparison 
is briefly indicated.. It should be subject to the needs of exposi- 

68 


69 


tion ; it should serve, like the parables of the Savior, to elucidate 
and facilitate the understanding of the abstract and spiritual ideas 
of Christian teaching. We shall soon see that Chrysostom, in 
practice, does not always keep in view this purpose of the 
comparison. 

_ His comparisons are drawn from various sources, at times 
from Sacred Scripture. But in the majority of cases Chrysostom 
draws on profane sources for the themes of his comparisons. As 
to the general character of these themes, our conclusions tally 
with those of Méridier (117) on Gregory of Nyssa, and of 
Guignet (161) on Gregory Nazianzen, viz., that Chrysostom’s 
comparisons are not taken from a great variety of subjects. All 
may be reduced to a limited number of stereotype forms, slightly 
modified to suit the occasion. We can classify them broadly under 
two heads, viz., such as are borrowed from natural phenomena, 
the sun, the stars, fire, earth, water etc., and such as are taken 
from the technical arts, military and naval science, the games etc. 
These are precisely the themes which were in vogue in the rheto- 
rical schools of the day. Like his contemporaries, Chrysostom for 
the most part adopts and utilizes them after the manner of the 
sophists. There is hardly any attempt at original treatment; he 
reveals no new phases of these subjects. 

I. Comparisons with the sun, e.g., 50, 703, 26: One who 
denies the divinity of Christ is like to one who claims that the sun 
is dark; by so doing he only proves his blindness. 50, 700, 37: 
“As one who looks at the sun does not make it more resplendent, 
but receives its light in his eye: so he who honors a martyr does 
not make him more celebrated, but receives the blessing of his 
light.” 50, 617, 42: The martyrs are said to be more radiant than 
ten thousand suns and more brilliant than the great lights of 
heaven.. 50, 699, 62: As it is impossible to extinguish the sun’s 
light, so too the memory of the martyrs. St. Peter, in 50, 455, 57, 
and St. Paul, in 50, 494, 53, are compared to the rising sun. 50, 
709, 29: The rivulets of blood flowing over the bodies of the 
martyrs are likened to the saffron-colored rays of the rising sun. 

2. Comparisons with the stars, e.g., 50, 467, 3: The faithful 
regarded the faces of the apostles as stars. 50, 707, 6: The starry 
sky is not so resplendent as the bodies of the martyrs with their 
brilliant array of wounds. Cf. also 50, 670, 1 ; 50, 669, 46. 

3. Comparisons with fire, 50, 494, 42: The voice of St. Paul is 
likened to a fire which consumes thorns. 50, 491, 27: The same 
saint is compared to a fire falling amid reeds or chaff. 50, 686, 


70 


62: The demons are said to flee before the relics of the martyrs as 
from fire. 50, 581, 61: The body of St. Pelagia, Virgin-Martyr, 
is compared to a flash of lightning striking terror into the pha- 
lanxes of the demons. 

4. Comparisons drawn from rivers, the sea, and navigation, 
49, 38, 30: The mouths of blasphemers are likened to death- 
dealing wells. 56, 265, 9: The multitude of the faithful hurrying 
to church is compared to a torrent. 49, 36, 10: The crowds at 
Antioch surpassed river floods. 52, 415, 23: “Life is like the 
raging sea, and every day it causes (ὠδίνει) unexpected and direful 
shipwrecks.” 49, 59, 45: The disaster at Antioch (387 A.D.) is 
likened to a storm on the sea, compelling all the faithful to take 
refuge in the church as ina harbor. 50, 598, 60: The living are 
likened to “voyagers tossed about in mid-ocean, now raised on 
the crests of the highest billows, now sinking down into the 
depths.” 50, 625, 45: The heart of the mother of the Maccabees 
is compared to a “rock in the sea which receives the shock of the 
waves, but remains firm and easily repels them dissolved into 
foam.” 50, 613, 2: Life at the time of the persecutions was like 
the sea stirred to its depths. Kings and tyrants raged more 
fiercely than the billows. 50, 425, 21: The Christian should look 
to the future reward like the merchant who braves the perils of 
the sea in the hope of amassing a fortune. A similar example 
occurs 50, 422, 50. 50, 590, 46: We admire the rulers of the 
Church in the time of persecution, as we esteem a pilot who can 
safely direct his ship when there is a storm on the sea and mutiny 
on board. 50, 507, 26: It would be as foolish for any one to 
undertake, without preparation, the office of preaching, as it would 
be for one to take the pilot’s place who is not skilled in battling 
with the waves (Cf. Guignet, 166). 50, 437, 46: A king, like a 
ship, 15 bespattered on all sides and contracts many flaws. 52, 
416, 50: One who hoards up excessive wealth is like an over- 
loaded ship. 50, 649, 19: The tombs of the martyrs are compared 
to safe harbors, fountains, and inexhaustible treasures. 

5. Military science, another source of comparisons, 49, 398, 
34: As a great king who is victorious in war hangs up on high 
the cuirass and shield of his enemy, so Christ, having conquered 
the devil, suspended on the cross, as a trophy, the weapons of the 
devil, death and the curse of sin. 50, 617, 54: As robbers flee at 
the sight of the gilded cuirass, helmet, and buckler of a great 
chieftain, so the devils dare not approach when they see the bodies 
of the martyrs. 50, 681, 53: The martyrs, upbraiding their per- 


71 


secutors, are likened to skilful archers who with perfect aim shoot 
their arrows from the bow-string and rout the lines of the enemy : 
so the holy martyrs and all the champions (ἀγωνισταί) of the truth 
send forth their words from their tongue as from a bow-string, 
and these, flying like arrows through the air, fall upon the unseen 
phalanxes of the demons and rout them. Note how carefully all 
the details of this comparison are worked out. 50, 681, 50: 
Women too can join the army of Christ; “they also may put ona 
cuirass, advance the buckler, and shoot darts.” The death of St. 
Drosis, Virgin-Martyr, is represented as a victory of Christ over 
the devil, 50, 687, 52: As David slew Goliath with his own sword, 
so Christ cut off the devil’s head with the same weapon (1.e., 
woman) with which he had conquered Adam. Justifying the holy 
anger of St. Paul, Chrysostom says, 50, 508, 24: “God gave to our 
soul the keenness of anger, like the sharp edge of a sword, to be 
used when there is need.”’ With reference to the victory which 
Christ won for us by his death on the Cross, Chrysostom says, 40, 
396, 55: “Since the victory is ours, let us like soldiers shout the 
hymn of victory (ἀλαλάξωμεν. ... τὴν ἐπινίκιον wenv).” On St. 
Roman, Martyr, 50, 613, 18: “The martyr laughed at this conflict 
(1.e., martyrdom) as at some mock-fight, and as if he were ἐν 
σκάμμασιν (a place dug out and sanded on which athletes prac- 
ticed) and covering his judges with dust; so he agitated the mind 
of the judge with his (display of) faith, and checked him in his 
course against the Church.” Note the ingenious application of 
the image of dust raised by the athlete to the faith of the martyr. 
50, 591, 39: “As in armies the command of the select troops and 
larger companies is given to the more skilful leaders, so in the 
Church large dioceses are entrusted to the more tried superiors.” 
50, 576, 60: “As soldiers show their wounds to the general and 
speak familiarly with him, so the martyrs, bearing their severed 
heads in their hands, and proffering them to the King of heaven, 
can obtain whatever they desire.” A bold and realistic compart- 
son. 50, 672, 2: “As even a cowardly man, at the sight of the 
buckler, spear, and cuirass of some champion, 15 filled with cour- 
age, so we, looking on the body of the martyr, ought to take heart 
and be ready to fight for Christ.” 49, 35, 46: The plight of the 
people of Antioch after the overthrow of the statues of Theo- 
dosius is likened to a siege. 

6. Comparisons borrowed from the athletic games, 50, 709, 10: 
Of the martyrs Chrysostom says: “These, like athletes crowned 
(στεφανῖται), departed after the contests to their ἀγωνοθέτης (1. 6., 


72 


God).” 50, 678, 38, On St. Barlaam, Martyr: “He stepped forth 
like a brave athlete who had practiced a long time in the palaestra ; 
for the prison was to the martyr a palaestra where, in private con- 
versation with God, he learned all the tricks of wrestling 
(παλαίσματα)." 50, 611, 59: As the palaestra makes the body 
strong and skilled in the athletic art, so the commemoration of 
the martyrs arms the soul against the tricks of the demons and 
trains it for the struggle (AaBds) with them. The narration of 
their sufferings spreads out before us, as in a stadium (ἐν 
σκάμμασι), the double course (δίαυλον) of every martyr. 50, 668, 
19: “The martyrs like boxers did not heed blows, but fixed their 
gaze on the crown. Like mariners they regarded not the dangers 
of the sea, but looked forward to the harbor.” In the following we 
receive some detailed information on the rules prevailing in ath- 
letic contests: 50, 421, 61: “In the Olympic games the athlete 
contends within the stadium, but his παιδοτρίβης (trainer) remains 
outside the lists, and, by calling him and shouting to him, gives 
aid, nor is he allowed to stand close and assist him with his hands. 
But the case is different in the spiritual contests; for here the 
trainer is at the same time an athlete. Therefore he stands not 
outside but enters the lists and anoints the athletes fighting in 
company with him” (Chrysostom is referring to St. Paul). In 
50, 440, 50, Christ is compared to a renowned παιδοτρίβης who, 
receiving a slovenly, enervated athlete, instructs, trains, and makes 
him put on muscle; then, not to let him grow idle, orders him to 
enter the contests, to teach him by actual test what strength he 
has acquired. 

The following specimen gives occasion to a beautiful ecphrasis 
or description of the triumphal entrance of the martyrs into 
heaven, 50, 710, 11: “For if, on the arrival of stranger athletes in 
a town, all the people gather in a circle and examine their well- 
shaped limbs: with greater likelihood did the angels and all the 
celestial powers gather around these athletes of religion as they 
entered heaven. They too carefully noted their wounds, received 
them amid rejoicing, and embraced them like champions coming 
from the battle after many trophies and victories. They con- 
ducted them amid a numerous bodyguard to the King of heaven, 
to the throne surrounded with glory, where are the Cherubim and 
Seraphim. Arriving there, they adore Him who sits on the 
throne, and are received by the Lord with greater kindness even 
than by their fellows, for he receives them not as servants but as 
friends.” Note that the martyrs are represented here both as 


AS 


athletes and as warriors. The picture is not lacking in sublimity. 

It is not unusual with Chrysostom to mount a tableau in the 
frame of a comparison, as appears again in the following: 50, 682, 
10: “Do you not see how unnerved those are who come from the 
spectacle of the games? The reason is the close attention with 
which they view the contests. They depart having fixed in their 
soul the image of eyes straining from their sockets, of hands 
twisted out of joint, of feet shifting quickly, and of other contor- 
tions which appear when the bodies are whirled about.” He then 
upbraids the faithful for not showing an equal interest in and 
application to the recital of the martyrs’ conflicts, and continues : 
“Let us set up in our minds (the picture of) all the martyrs, to- 
gether with the cauldrons and other instruments of torture, and, 
as painters often wipe off an old painting grown dim with smoke 
and soot, so let us employ the memory of the martyrs. If worldly 
cares enter and darken the image of your soul, restore its bright- 
ness by recalling to mind the martyrs. 

In his panegyric On St. Roman, 50, 611, 4, he compares the 
devil, plotting to have the tongue of the martyr cut out, to an 
athlete who, vanquished in the παγκράτιον by his adversary, has 
the latter’s hands cut off and thus maimed is able to strike him: 
so in the case of the martyr the severed member was the most 
striking proof of the devil’s defeat. 

7. Comparisons drawn from the chariot races, 50, 501, 11: St. 
Paul, hesitating to speak in praise of himself, is compared to a 
steed which, coming to the edge of a precipice, rears up con- 
tinually. In Hom. II On the Statues, Chrysostom likens the in- 
habitants of Antioch to a steed, 49, 34, 46: “The populace so well 
ordered and quiet, yea, even like a tractable and well tamed steed, 
always submissive to the hands of its rulers, has now so suddenly 
started off with us, as to have wrought such evils, as one can 
hardly dare to mention.” Jb. 58, the weight of sadness is likened 
to a bridle that checks the tongue of the preacher. In the sermon 
On the Holy Martyrs, 50, 645, 42, Chrysostom draws a parallel 
between the spectacle of the suffering martyrs and the chariot 
races: “If those who rave about the games and are eager for the 
chariot races never get their fill of this senseless spectacle; then, 
in greater measure, ought we have an insatiable longing for the 
feasts of the martyrs.” Then follows a series of well balanced 
antitheses: Ἐκεῖ πομπὴ διαβολικὴ, ἐνταῦθα ἑορτὴ χριστιανικῆ: ἐκεῖ 
δαίμονες σκιρτῶσιν, ἐνταῦθα ἄγγελοι xopevovow: ἐκεῖ ψυχῶν ἀπώλεια, 


> ~ ~ ε pS . ia) 
ἐνταῖθα σωτηρία τῶν συλλεγομένων ἁπάντων. Then he asks: “What 


74 


pleasure is it to see a futile and haphazard race of horses? Here, 
however, you see not teams of brute animals, but the myriad 
chariots of the martyrs and God as their charioteer driving along 
the road to heaven.” 


8. A considerable number of comparisons are taken from agri- 
culture and gardening, e.g., 50, 573, 26: The Church is compared 
to a garden irrigated by the blood of the martyrs. 49, 35, 10: 
The city of Antioch after the overthrow of the statues of Theo- 
dosius is likened to a park afflicted with a drought, the trees being 
stripped of their foliage and fruit; 7b. 36, 12, to an oak-grove in 
which the trees have been cut down, and to a bald head (this 
image is not sufficiently elevated to be applied to a city) ; 2b. 35, I, 
to a bee-hive, and its people to bees buzzing round the market- 
place during the prosperous days that preceded the noted calam- 
ity ; after the calamity, to a deserted bee-hive ; for fear like smoke 
drove away the bees. The comparison of the faithful to bees 
occurs again in 52, 405, 44. 50, 673, 15: The bodies of the mar- 
tyrs are likened to trees that bear fruit at all seasons, and to 
fountains that are never exhausted. 49, 17, 19: The Sacred Scrip- 
tures are compared to a meadow covered with violets, lilies, and 
various flowers, and to a park full of fruit trees. Here is a com- 
parison of undoubted sophistic origin: In his panegyric On St. 
Ignatius, Martyr, 52, 587, 52, Chrysostom says: “We feel as one 
entering a meadow who sees an abundance of roses, violets, lilies, 
and other various flowers of spring, and is at a loss which ones 
he should admire first, and which next, since all invite a closer 
view.” 7 52, 417, 4: Superfluous wealth should be removed, as the 
gardener prunes the vine of its leaves and tendrils. 52, 409, 16: 
St. Paul is likened to an able husbandman, handling the plow of 
doctrine. The Christian is compared to a husbandman, 50, 425, 
31, and 49, 59, 6. Human nature is likened to fat and rich soil, 
50, 467, 44. Grief over the sins of their brethren pressed upon 
the neck of the Apostles like a heavy yoke, 50, 590, 31. 


9. Comparisons with animals, 50, 696, 21: The devil is com- 
pared to a wild beast who devours the bodies of the martyrs, 
covering his mouth and tongue with blood. Conquered by their 
endurance, he retreats sated with his cruel repast. 50, 523, 23: 
“Hunger, like an executioner lodged in the vitals, lacerates the 
body more fiercely than fire or a wild beast.” Note the redun- 


1 Himerius, V, 57, line 32; Libanius, XVII, 211 (end), edit. Foerster; 
Gregory of Nyssa, Méridier, 126; Gregory Nazianzen, Guignet, 166. 


79 


dance of images. We shall encounter still more striking examples 
of Chrysostom’s prodigality in this regard. 

The following, on St. Pelagia, Virgin-Martyr, is a picture of 
poetical delicacy, drawn with the nicety of detail which reveals 
the finished art of the rhetor: St. Pelagia, surrounded in her home 
by the executioners, won a martyr’s crown by leaping from the 
roof of her house, 50, 581, 3: “As a hind which has fallen into the 
hands of the hunters and has escaped thence to the inaccessible 
‘top of a mountain, stops at length in its flight and looks down 
without fear on its former pursuers: so she, having fallen into 
the hands of the hunters and being shut up in her home as in a 
net, rushed up, not to the mountain top, but to the very heights of 
heaven, where there was no chance to reach her. Moreover, look- 
ing down thence upon them as they retreated empty-handed, she 
rejoiced at seeing the disgrace that had come upon these infidels.” 
Contrast with this sympathetic picture his sketch of Julian the 
Apostate, 50, 530, I: “Looking up from earth to heaven, he 
howled like the mad dogs that bark indiscriminately at friend and 
foe.” 50, 421, 13: “Concupiscence, like a mad dog, leaps at us 
continually.” 

10. Comparisons with musical instruments: To convey the 
idea of harmony, the Greek orators often employ the image of a 
musical instrument. Chrysostom manifests a strong liking for 
this figure, e.g., 50, 588, 54: “As in a lyre there are many strings 
but one accord, so in the choir of the Apostles there are many 
persons but one doctrine, since there is one artist, the Holy Spirit, 
moving the souls.” In 53, 107, 33, the body of man is compared to 
a lyre needing the touch of the musician, who is God, to produce 
a tuneful melody. St. Roman, Martyr, who miraculously retained 
his speech after his tongue had been cut out, gives our orator a 
splendid opportunity to display this showy figure with all the 
finesse of a sophist orator. The mouth of the saint is represented 
both as a flute, and as a cither, his tongue as a mouthpiece and a 
plectrum respectively, 50, 611, 26: “If you take the mouthpiece 
off a flute, the instrument becomes useless. Not so this spiritual 
flute ; for though the tongue was removed, it gave forth a sweeter 
and more mystic melody..... And in the case of a cither, if 
one takes away the plectrum, the player is helpless. ... . Here 
the very opposite happens: For truly, his mouth was a cither, his 
tongue the plectrum, his soul the player, and his confession the 
art,” etc. The studious care of detail and the emphasis on the 
paradoxical are here very noticeable. In 50, 613, 24, the same 


76 


martyr is compared to a tympanum: “The executioners stood 
about and crushed his body with blows, but he, like a brass tym- 
panum, echoed a melody of piety. Suspending him on a rack, 
they tore his body, but he embraced the rack like a tree of life. 
They lacerated his cheeks as well as his sides, but he, as if he had 
thereby received more mouths, held a speech,” etc. The exag- 
geration and bad taste of this comparison mark it as strongly 
sophistic. 

11. Comparisons taken from painting were equally popular 
with the Greeks. Chrysostom has the following: In 50, 589, 16, 
St. Paul, writing on the qualities necessary to a bishop, is likened 
to a skilful painter. In 50, 622, 53, the faithful are bidden to 
depict the struggles of the martyrs on their hearts as on tablets. 
In 60, 227, 16, the house of God is compared to a painter’s studio, 
where royal portraits are painted with the colors of virtue. 

We have here quite a complete collection of the traditional com- 
parisons of the schools, which shows how faithfully Chrysostom 
follows the fashion of the sophist orators. We shall by way of 
supplement add a number of comparisons which, either by reason 
of their originality or their distinctive character, occupy a place 
apart from the preceding. 

In 52, 394, 37, the church in which the deposed consul Eutro- 
pius was being held a voluntary prisoner clinging to the altar for 
asylum, is compared to “a king seated on his throne, clad in royal 
purple, with a crown on his head, whilst at his feet the barbarians 
lie prostrate, their hands tied behind their back.” Again, in 50, 
453, 24, the church holding a large gathering of the faithful is 
likened to a modest, highbred woman wearing a garment that 
reaches to her ankles. 50, 522, 8: “The bride seated in the bridal- 
chamber is not so lovely and charming as the Christian soul ap- 
pearing in church is admirable and glorious, redolent with the 
perfume of spiritual ointments.” 50, 583, 35: The faithful who 
on their way from church relate to one another the deeds of the 
martyrs are represented as using their tongue like a censer, to 
fill with perfume the road on which they travel. 50, 526, 12: “The 
Christian should profess his faith everywhere, wearing it like a 
royal diadem on his brow.” 50, 622, 36: “The body of the mother 
of the Maccabees was added to the choir of her sons as a most 
precious gem is inserted in a crown.” 50, 618, 50: The bodies of 
the martyrs covered with wounds are likened to glorious kingly 
crowns set with pearls and gems. 409, 41, 26: “As too large a 
shoe hiiders one in walking, so superfluous wealth is a hindrance 


77 


on the journey to heaven.” 50, 635, 13: Sts. Bernice and Pros- 
doce, flying from their city at the time of persecution, are com- 
pared to persons who flee from a burning house at midnight. The 
same image is applied to Antioch, 49, 35, 19. 

A classical commonplace is contained in the following, 50, 589, 
51: “As one who hands a sharp sword to a madman becomes a 
party to the murder committed by him, so a bishop who lends the 
approval of his authority to one living wickedly contracts the 
guilt of all his sins.” * 

The comparison of man to an actor on the stage of the world, 
which is a current theme among the philosophers and rhetors, is 
developed at length by Chrysostom in 48, 1034, 54. 

Thus far we have reviewed only the chief themes which 
appear in Chrysostom’s comparisons, and only in a few cases 
have we called attention to the artistic qualities of the compari- 
sons themselves. There still remains the task of examining in 
how far Chrysostom, in his development of these themes, reflects 
the methods of the sophists, in other words, we must point out 
the comparisons which are ingenious, far-fetched, minutely de- 
tailed, exaggerated, paradoxical, redundant, or which show bad 
taste. 

Here are some fair specimens of the studied ingenuity which 
the sophists reckoned as one of the highest accomplishments of a 
finished artist : 

In the conclusion of one of his sermons Chrysostom says: 
“We must briefly recapitulate what we have said, and imitate 
mothers who put into their children’s lap fruit, dainties, and the 
like. Lest they lose some of the things given to them, the mothers 
tuck up their garments on all sides, and thrust them securely 
under the girdle. Let us do the same, summarizing our long- 
drawn out discourse, and depositing it in the care of memory,” 
50, 119, 18. 

The body of St. Meletius, buried in the tomb, but spiritually 
efficacious, is compared to a wonderful hidden root, itself invis- 
ible, but showing its vigor by its fruits, 50, 515, 23. 

In the following comparison a natural phenomenon is chosen 
to illustrate the paradoxical aspect of a miracle—a typically 
sophistic procedure: “As well-diggers, when they dig up the veins 
of the earth, cause a more copious flow of water, so the tyrant 
who severed the root of St. Roman’s tongue was overwhelmed 
with a more violent flood of reproaches,” 50, 616, 65. 

2Cf. Plato, Rep. I, 331 C. 


78 


Here is an elaborate comparison on St. Pelagia, who, sur- 
rounded in her home by a band of soldiers, won a martyr’s crown 
by hurling herself from the roof of her house, 50, 581, 49: “As 
a merchant-ship, with a cargo of ointments and precious pearls, 
at the very mouth of the harbor, escapes the shock of a billow 
which had threatened to engulf it, and is raised up by the force 
of the tide and carried with greater speed into the harbor: so too 
it was with the Blessed Pelagia; for the rush of the soldiers, the 
fear of impending tortures, and the menacing attitude of the 
judge, falling upon her with more violence than a billow, only 
urged her to fly more quickly up to heaven.” 

An example of studied prettiness occurs in the discourse On 
St. Meletius, 50, 515, 36: “As one fashioning a crown of gold 
adds to the splendor of the diadem by inserting pearls in the mass 
of gems: so I, twining this day a garland of praise for this blessed 
head, weave into the texture of my discourse the frequent repe- 
tition of his name.” 

Hom. 11 On the Maccabees opens with a far-fetched and ex- 
aggerated comparison, which is meant to illustrate the preacher’s 
ἀπορία, 50, 623, 17: “When I consider the glorious deeds of the 
Seven Martyrs, I fare like a miser who, sitting by a stream of 
liquid gold with seven tubes attached, strives to draw out the 
whole flood, but retreats after untold labor, leaving the greater 
part of his task undone... .. i 

Sometimes the first member of a comparison is nothing else 
than a disguised ecphrasis, or artistic description, absorbing all 
the interest and eclipsing entirely the main idea. It serves no 
longer to illustrate the latter, but is simply a bit of ornament 
introduced for the sake of entertaining the audience. Thus 
Chrysostom likens St. Paul to a physician, 50, 499, 2: “When you 
see the doctor now cauterizing, now fomenting (the diseased 
parts), now employing the knife, now medicine, now stinting the 
sick person as to food and drink, and again, bidding him to par- 
take liberally of the same; now wrapping him up tightly, and 
again, when he is thoroughly warm, ordering him to drink a whole 
tumbler of cold water,—you do not in such cases criticize the con- 
stant change of method: τς Ὁ Much more must we praise St. 
Paul adapting himself to sinners, for those who are sick in soul 
need no less skilful treatment than the sick of body etc.” 

A similar specimen occurs in 49, 51, 59, where fasting is com- 
pared to a medicine,* and again in 50, 707, 55, where an actual 

8 Cf. Guignet, 170. 


tae 


79 


battle scene and the struggles of the martyrs are contrasted: 
“What is the terrible thing in a battle? Two armies, well en- 


_ trenched, are arrayed against one another, bristling with weapons 


and armour, the gleam of which illumines the earth; from every 
side clouds of arrows are discharged, which obscure the light of 
day. Rivers of blood flood the ground, and many are cut down 
everywhere, like the crops at harvest time, so violent is the clash 
of the opposing hosts. Now let me show you another kind of 
battle. Here also are two hostile armies, the one of the martyrs, 
the other of the tyrants; but the tyrants are fully armed, while 
the martyrs fight without arms or armour, and the victory goes 
to the unarmed, not to the armed.” Note the emphasis on the 
paradoxical. In 708, 20, ib., the martyrs’ struggle is compared to 
an athletic combat, and, ib. 30, their wonderful victory is likened 
to that of a soldier who would be forced to enter the battle with 
the point of his spear broken off, without his cuirass, and who, 
though bruised and battered and covered with myriads of wounds, 
would come off victorious. A similar paradoxical contrast is 
pursued at length in the fourth discourse on St. Paul, 50, 492, 43. 

More generally however, all the minute points of the first 
member of the comparison are faithfully and exactly retraced in 
the second. We have already observed the sophistic method of 
searching after a great number of coincidences in minute points ; 
it is strikingly exemplified in this description of a warrior’s tent, 
which serves as a comparison with the tomb of the martyrs, 50, 
680, 58: “The mere fame of a celebrated champion is enough to 
rouse a soldier; much more, however, does the sight and aspect 
of such a one move him, especially if he enters the tent of the 
brave warrior, and sees the gory sword, the head of his enemy 
lying on the ground, the spoils suspended, the fresh blood dripping 
from the hands of him who erected the trophy; if he sees every- 
where spears, bucklers, bows, and the other panoply of war. 
Therefore we too are met here. For the grave of the martyr is a 
soldier’s tent ; and if you open the eyes of faith, you will see there 
the cuirass of justice, the buckler of faith, the helmet of salvation, 
the greaves of the gospel, the sword of the spirit, and the very 
head of the devil lying on the ground. For when you see a de- 
moniac lying on his back by the martyr’s tomb, lacerating his face, 
you are beholding nothing else than the head of the devil. Even 
now such weapons lie by the side of the soldiers of Christ; and, 
as kings bury brave chiefs with their arms, so Christ too buried 
the martyrs with their weapons, that he might even before the 


80 


resurrection exhibit the glory and power of the saints.” A curt- 
ous specimen of sophistic workmanship, interesting because the 
series of metaphors, cuirass of justice etc., is borrowed from St. 
Paul (Ephes. V1, 11-17). Was this detailed description prompted 
by that passage? If so, it would show how the sophist enlarged 
on an already elaborate allegory of Holy Scripture. 

Contrast with this martial scene a pastoral ecphrasis of poet- 
ical beauty, forming the first part of a comparison between a 
flock of sheep in pasture and the flock of Christ, 50, 683, 24: 
“Industrious shepherds, when they see how the sun’s bright rays 
shining through the long winter have at length brought warmer 
weather, drive their sheep out of the folds to their usual pastures. 
Imitating them, our worthy shepherd (Flavian) has led this holy 
and spiritual flock of Christ to these spiritual pastures of the 
saints. The sheep, it is true, get their fill standing at the manger, 
but once outside the pen, they derive more benefit from the 
meadows, bending down with great delight, nibbling off the grass 
with their teeth, breathing the fresh air, looking up at the bright 
and clear sunlight, and gamboling by lakes, springs, and rivers. 
The earth too, decked everywhere with flowers, gives them pleas- 
ure. This is true not only of these but of us also. For us too, 
indeed, there is set within the church a table full of spiritual 
viands, but this going out to the graves of the holy martyrs affords 
us great consolation and not less advantage. Not because we 
breathe the fresh air, but because we fix our gaze on the grand 
deeds of these noble heroes. We leap with joy, not by rivers of 
flowing water, but by the streams of divine grace; not grazing 
with heads bowed down to earth, but culling the virtues of the 
martyrs; not contemplating the earth decked with flowers, but 
bodies teeming with spiritual gifts.” The scrupulous nicety of 
detail in this picture is the strongest indication of its sophistic 
character. | 

A like elaborate ecphrasis occurs in 50, 494, 53, where St. 
Paul’s preaching of the Gospel is compared in its effects to the 
rising of the sun. A graphic description of a pilot’s resourceful- 
ness during a storm, applied to St. Roman, Martyr, occurs in 50, 
615, 44. Another striking comparison taken from painting, in 
which the second part develops into a colorful portrayal of the 
tortures of the martyrs, will be quoted in the chapter on the 
ecphrasis. 

The following passage will demonstrate how Chrysostom 
could draw a moral with telling power in the form of a compari- 


81 


son, 50, 649, 56: “The martyrs shed their blood: let your eyes 
shed tears, for tears can extinguish the fire of sins. Their sides 
were lacerated, they beheld the executioners surrounding them: 
you do this with your conscience. Place your reason as an im- 
partial judge on the throne of your soul, and bring forward all 
your sins. Confront them with menacing reflections, chastise your 
impure thoughts, from which spring your sins, and torture them 
most violently. If we so practice judging ourselves, we shall 
escape that terrible judgment.” The picture is grand and 
powerful. 


We come now to a phase of Chrysostom’s art which proves 
how thoroughly he was permeated with the sophistic spirit; we 
mean his immoderate heaping up of comparisons on one subject, 
a trait already noted in regard to his metaphors. In his desire 
for ornamentation, he gives free rein to his rich and lively fancy, 
outrivaling in this respect even the most radical sophists. Guignet 
(182) notes as excessive Himerius’ employment of five compari- 
sons in five successive lines, and remarks that Gregory Nazianzen 
is never guilty of such immoderation. But Himerius is moderate 
compared with Chrysostom, for we find in 52, 410, 14, fourteen 
short comparisons, in 51, 44, 38, eight, and in 50, 447, 49, six 
comparisons following in close succession. What makes them 
more artificial is their parallel structure, enhanced by homoiote- 
leuton, so that they form well-balanced periods of parisa. The 
fourteen comparisons illustrate the intimate bond of union be- 
tween God and the human soul, and are borrowed from Sacred 
Scripture: “For He espoused her as a wife, He loves her as a 
daughter, He provides for her as a handmaid, He guards her as 
a virgin, He fences her round like a garden, and cherishes her 
like a member; as a head He provides for her, as a root He 
causes her to grow, as a shepherd He feeds her, as a bridegroom 
He weds her, as a propitiation He pardons her, as a sheep He is 
sacrificed, as a bridegroom He preserves her, in beauty, as a hus- 
band He provides for her support.” 


The series of eight comparisons occurs (51, 44, 38) in Chrys- 
ostom’s Hom. on the Narrow Gate and on the Lord’s Prayer: 
“When a person leaps like a steer, kicks like an ass, is as vindictive 
as a camel, gluttonous like a bear, robs like a wolf, stings like a 
scorpion, is treacherous as a fox, and neighs after women like a 
stallion—how can such a one utter the cry befitting a son and call 
God his father ?” 


82 


The dry and mechanical fashion in which Chrysostom enu- 
merates these series of short comparisons makes them appear as 
a mere display of rhetorical virtuosity. Here are some more 
examples of Chrysostom’s prolixity: 49, 50, 50: “As when the 
winter is over and the summer is appearing, the sailor draws his 
vessel to the deep; and the soldier burnishes his arms, and makes 
ready his steed for the battle; and the husbandman sharpens his 
sickle; and the traveler boldly undertakes a long journey, and 
the wrestler strips and bares himself for the contest. So too, 
when the fast makes its appearance like a kind of spiritual sum- 
mer, let us as soldiers burnish our weapons; and as husbandmen 
let us sharpen our sickle etc.” In 50, 576, 49, the martyrs are 
compared to pillars, towers, rocks, stars, and steers. 

This heaping of comparisons becomes even more unbearable 
when it is coupled with a mixing of figures, as in 52, 416, 42, 
where hoarded wealth is likened to a lion, leopard, or bear which 
grows fierce and savage when confined in a dark place: “Thus 
wealth, securely locked up and buried in the ground, roars more 
fiercely than a lion... . but if you lead it out of the dark and 
scatter it in the bellies of the poor, the wild beast becomes a sheep, 
the enemy a friend, the rock a harbor, the shipwreck a calm.” 
Note the series of paradoxes. 

It is Chrysostom’s desire to formulate a paradox that makes 
him apply two antithetical images to one subject in 50, 707, 39: 
“Let no one censure us, if we call the host of martyrs a band of 
dancers (χορός), and an army in battle-array (παράταξις)... .. 
for like dancers they hastened to the scenes of torture with de- 
light, and like warriors they displayed great courage and endur- 
ance and overcame their adversaries.” He then concludes with 
a well-balanced parison which we have already quoted (p. 46). 
The bad taste of the hyperbole which represents the martyrs as 
dancers at a feast and the striking paradox stamp this comparison 
as strongly sophistical. 

Here is an overwrought comparison of the melodramatic kind, 
on St. Barlaam, Martyr, who, rather than offer incense to the 
gods, suffered his right hand to be consumed by the sacrificial fire, 
50, 680, 11: “As a brave warrior rushes against the foe, routs their 
line, and breaks his sword with the frequent blows he deals; then 
turns about and demands another sword, because he is not satis- 
fied with the slaughter of the foe: so the Blessed Barlaam, having 
lost his hand in cutting down the phalanxes of the demons, wished 
for another right hand, to show his alacrity by sacrificing it also.” 


83 


With this last extravagant remark compare Polemo’s Declama- 
tion A, I1, where Cynaegirus, both of whose hands were cut off 
in the battle of Marathon, shows his eagerness to fight by up- 
braiding nature for her scantiness and demanding more hands 
of her. 

Illustrating the idea that, in consequence of Christ’s victory 
over death, even young maidens like St. Pelagia fearlessly courted 
a martyr’s death, Chrysostom makes a comparison which is so 
strongly exaggerated as to be comical, 50, 579, 15: “As a mighty 
hunter takes a lion which has been terrorizing, and making in- 
roads on his flock, knocks out his teeth, shears his hair, and thus 
makes him the butt of laughter and ridicule, giving him to the 
shepherd lads and girls to play with: so Christ took death, who 
was feared by human nature, and who terrorized our whole race, 
robbed him of his terrors, and delivered him over, so that even 
young girls can make sport of him.” This image was probably 
suggested by the custom, prevalent in Chrysostom’s time, of 
leading tamed lions about the market-place.* 

Here is another comparison that amuses by its grotesqueness : 
In 51, 117, 22, St. Paul is likened to “a big fish, stirring up the 
sea and raising countless billows against the Church ....: “As 
a fisherman poised on a high rock, with rod raised up, drops his 
hook into the sea, so indeed our Lord, showing forth a spiritual 
type of fishing, was seated, as it were, on the high rock of the 
heavens, and dropped like a hook the words: ‘Saul, Saul, why 
persecutest thou me?’ Thus he caught this huge fish. And what 
happened in the case of the fish caught by Peter at the Lord’s 
behest came to pass in this one also. This fish too was found 
holding a counterfeit stater in his jaws: for he had zeal, but not 
Mewise zeal, ..." ς΄. And as they when drawn out of the sea 
straightway become blind, so he had no sooner swallowed the 
hook, than he was struck with blindness. However, this blind- 
ness brought sight to the whole world.” Note the oxymoron in 
the last line. This is a curious sample of sophistic art. The 
labored ingenuity with which trivial details are worked out and 
the bad taste of the whole image leave no doubt as to its sophistic 
nature. 

For the end of this chapter we have reserved a long series of 
comparisons, which fairly teems with sophistic mannerisms and 
bad taste. This series occurs in 50, 688, 38, on St. Drosis, the 
-Virgin-Martyr : “As maniacs see nothing as it truly is, but whether 


ee Rai 705) aes 


84 


it be a sharp sword, or fire, or an abyss, or a precipice, or the sea, 
hurl themselves into it without fear; so she, mad with a madness 
not like this, God forbid! but with a madness more excellent than 
any wisdom (oxymoron), and steeped with longing for Christ, 
saw nothing of what she saw (oxymoron), but, as if she were 
transferred to heaven and abiding there in spirit, she laughed at 
all terrors and looked upon the fire not as fire, but as dew (δρόσον). 
Therefore I call that pyre a fountain of purest water, and a won- 
derful bath of dye, and a smelting-furnace. For the soul of this 
blessed one was purified by fire, as gold is ina furnace. Though 
her flesh fell to pieces, and her bones were charred, and her sinews 
consumed, and the humor of her body flowed down on all sides, 
yet the faith of her soul grew more firm and bright. .... The 
layman, when he sees the melting gold run down and mix with 
the ashes, thinks it is spoiled and ruined, but the. skilled artisan 
knows that so it becomes purer, and after it is burnt, he draws it 
forth shining brightly. Thus, in her case too, the infidels, seeing 
her flesh consumed and falling to pieces, fancied it was turning to 
dust and ashes, but the faithful well knew that, consumed by the 
fire, it was casting off all dross, and endowed with immortality 
was ascending more radiant (to heaven).” 

“Moreover, whilst yet at the stake, and even before her resur- 
rection, she conquered the hostile powers in a striking manner ; 
for her flesh, while being consumed by the fire, made a hissing 
sound and routed them completely. And as a brave soldier, armed 
with steel weapons, by their very clang strikes terror into his 
cowardly foe, so too the Blessed Drosis, with the hissing of her 
skin, put to flight the infernal powers; and not only in this way, 
but in another not less wonderful. For no sooner had she mounted 
the pyre when the smoke ascending filled the air and choked the 
demons flying about, and drove away the devil, thus purifying the 
ΟΠ τον And the image of a fountain would fitly apply 
to that pyre; for, as if she were putting off a garment in the 
fountain and washing her body, so she put off her flesh in the 
fire with more ease than any garment, and made her soul bright, 
and accompanied by the angels hastened to her Bridegroom. If 
the angels conducted Lazarus, who was covered with ulcers, to 
the bosom of Abraham; with much more likelihood did they, 
forming a body-guard, take her as from a sacred bridal-chamber 
and lead her to her heavenly Spouse. And why do I call that 
pyre a bath of dye? Because she was sent up to the King of 
heaven as if changed to royal purple in a bath of dye 





85 


Christ himself with unseen hand holding the sacred head and dip- 
ping it into the fire as into water. O wonderful pyre! what a 
treasure it held! that dust and ashes being more precious than 
gold, more fragrant than any ointment, and more valuable than 
any gem.” 

We note as evidences of strong sophistic coloring the two 


cases of oxymoron, the immoderate heaping of such heterogene- 


ous ideas as dew, fountain, bath of dye, smelting-furnace, and 
bridal-chamber, the improper image of a maniac applied to the 
martyr, the puerile figure of the hissing of flesh likened to the 
clang of steel, the marked tendency to ecphrasis, and the studied 
minuteness of detail. The desire to make a pun on the martyr’s 
name (Apoois) probably suggested the paradoxical comparison 
of fire to dew (δρόσος). 

In summing up the sophistic traits of Chrysostom’s compari- 
sons, we must note, first of all, that in practice he often loses 
sight of the real purpose of the comparison as defined by himself. 
He frequently indulges in a heaping up of comparisons, thus 
giving a vain display of rhetorical pyrotechnics. His themes are 
largely those of the rhetorical schools. He develops them in 
truly sophistic fashion, with the result that many of his compari- 
sons are exaggerated, paradoxical, far-fetched, bizarre, and puer- 
ile. Others are pursued with studied ingenuity into the minutest 
details. Thus every phase of Chrysostom’s use of the comparison 
emphasizes still more the influence of sophistic rhetoric on his 
oratory. 


CHAPTER SV IT 


THE ECPHRASIS 


The metaphor and the comparison are not devices of style 
which are peculiar to the sophists. We find them in all writers 
of every literature. It is only in the characteristic method of their 
employment that the sophistic manner manifests itself. But the 
fondness for concrete and graphic representation, of which they 
are the expression, reveals itself in Chrysostom by a form of 
exposition which is essentially sophistic, the Ecphrasis. The 
ecphrasis owes its name and definition to the rhetoricians. It is 
a species of narration, or rather description, whose purpose is to 
give a lifelike portrayal of an object in all its details. It is a 
painting in words. The favorite themes of the sophists, which 
they borrowed from the Alexandrine poets, were descriptions of 
nature, the sea, meadows, caves, animals, birds, especially the 
peacock ; descriptions of works of art, paintings, statues, temples 
etc. ; descriptions of the human body εἰς. 

We have already noted in the preceding chapter how the germ 
or even the fully developed form of the ecphrasis often appears 
in the comparison. , We refer especially to the description of a 
battle (p. 79), of a warrior’s tent (p. 1b.), of a flock of sheep in 
pasture (p. 80). While quoting one or more further examples 
of this kind, we shall turn our attention here chiefly to the 
ecphrasis in its pure and independent form. 

It is not surprising that the Christian orators of the fourth 
century should adopt a device so well calculated to impart life and 
color to their discourses and so acceptable to the public. More- 
over, the topics of their sermons, such as the harrowing spectacles 
of martyrdom, the dramatic scenes of the Old and New Testa- 
ment, the grandeur and beauty of the universe, invited and fully 
justified graphic portrayal. We might, however, expect them to 
remain within the limits of artistic necessity, but this is not always 
the case, as Méridier’s study of Gregory of Nyssa (139), and 
Guignet’s work on Gregory Nazianzen (187) sufficiently prove. 
Chrysostom is occasionally guilty of the same fault, though we 
shall see him at times putting a powerful check on his bent for 


1Cf. Norden, Die Antike Kunstprosa I, 408, note 2. 
86 


87 


descriptive detail. Since elaborate descriptions are not so fre- 
quent in Chrysostom, we have drawn our examples not only from 
the sermons, but also from other of his writings. 


Descriptions of nature: 56, 265, 48: “For your sake the sun 
rises, and the moon lights up the night, and the changeful chorus 
of stars beams forth; for you the winds blow, and the rivers 
flow ; for you the seeds germinate, and the plants grow, and nature 
keeps her wonted course, and the day appears and the night van- 
ishes.””’ In Hom. IX on the Statues, we find this descriptive 
passage, 40, 114, 37: “Follow me whilst I enumerate the meadows, 
the gardens, the various tribes of flowers; all sorts of herbs and 
their uses; their odors, forms, disposition, yea, but their very 
names; the trees which are fruitful, and which are barren; the 
nature of metals,—and of animals,—in the sea, or on the land; 
of those that swim, and those that traverse the air; the moun- 
tains, the forests, the groves ; the meadow below, and the meadow 
above; for there is a meadow on the earth, and a meadow too in 
the sky ; the various flowers of the stars; the rose below, and the 
rainbow above! Would you have me point out also the meadow 
of birds? Consider the variegated body of the peacock, sur- 
passing every dye, and the fowls of purple plumage. Contemplate 
with me the beauty of the sky; how it has been preserved so long 
without being dimmed, and remains as bright and clear as if it 
had been only fabricated today ; moreover, the power of the earth, 
how its womb has not become effete by bringing forth during so 
long a time! Contemplate with me the fountains ; how they burst 
forth and fail not, since the time they were begotten, to flow forth 
continually throughout the day and night! Contemplate with me 
the sea, receiving so many rivers, yet never exceeding its 
measure !” 

This is an inspiring hymn on the marvels of creation, and it 
shows us Chrysostom using the ecphrasis for an eminently prac- 
tical purpose, to fill the minds of the faithful with admiration for 
the wisdom and power of God. The details are briefly sketched, 
and the whole description is more simple than the one in Gregory 
Nazianzen on the same theme.? It is of interest to note that 
Chrysostom resists the temptation to enlarge on the plumage of 
the peacock, a subject which every sophist loved to treat. Gregory 
Nazianzen, however, gives a gorgeous ecphrasis of the peacock in 
the passage referred to, and Gregory of Nyssa also has an elab- 


2 Cf. Guignet, 190 ff. 


88 


orate description of that bird.* In Hom. XI on the Statues (49, 
122 and 123), Chrysostom describes with the accuracy of a 
physiologist the wonderful structure of the human eye, the eye- 
lashes, eyebrows, the brain, and the heart as revealing the wisdom 
of the Creator. 


Parallel between a meadow or garden, and the Holy Scrip- 
tures, 52, 395, 64: “Delectable indeed are the meadow and the 
garden, but far more delectable is the study of the divine writings. 
For there indeed are flowers which fade, but here are thoughts 
which abide in full bloom; there is the breeze of the zephyr, but 
here the breath of the Spirit; there is the hedge of thorns, but 
here is the guarding providence of God; there is the song of 
cicadae, but here the melody of the prophets; there is the pleasure 
which comes from sight, but here the profit which comes from 
study. The garden is confined to one place, but the Scriptures are 
in all parts of the world; the garden is subject to the necessities 
of the seasons, but the Scriptures are rich in foliage and laden 
with fruit alike in winter and in summer.” A very poetical de- 
scription sketched with the delicate art of the rhetor. Meadows, 
gardens, and the cicada were favorite themes of description. Also 
note the paradox in the last clause of the passage. 


St. Paul’s preaching is compared to the rising sun in its effects, 
50, 494, 53: “As, when the sun rises, darkness is dispelled, wild 
beasts slink away and lurk in their lairs, robbers flee, murderers 
take refuge in their dens, pirates cease from their trade, grave- 
breakers withdraw, and adulterers, thieves, and housebreakers 
depart to some distant place and vanish for fear of being detected 
and convicted by the sun’s beams, and all becomes bright and 
clear, the earth and the ocean, while the sun from on high illu- 
mines everything, the seas, the mountains, the lands, and the 
cities: so too, when the Gospel appeared, and Paul spread it 
broadcast, error was dispelled, truth returned, and fumes and the 
smoke (of sacrifices), and cymbals and kettle drums, drunkenness 
and revels, fornication and adultery, and other unmentionable 
deeds wont to be perpetrated at the sacrifices ceased and were 
abolished, melting like wax in the fire and vanishing like chaff in 
the flame.” The elaborate structure of this long period is empha- 
sized by eighteen cases of polysyndeton, ten at the beginning, and 
eight at the end. Poetical color is imparted by the frequent 
homoioteleuta, for which we refer to the Greek text. Highway- 


8 Cf. Méridier, 144. 


89 


men, pirates, grave-robbers, and housebreakers are pet themes in 
sophistic literature. 


Here are two short sketches of poetical delicacy, 50, 600, 46: 
“The springs spout up copious floods: indeed they do not contain 
them within their bosom, but bringing forth large rivers they join 
the sea, and stretching forth, as it were, their long fingers they 
reach the waters of the ocean.”’ Speaking of a species of wild 
vines, 50, 600, 54: “For, when they push forward their shoots 
over the top of the reeds, the tendrils creeping through the 
branches advance very far, thus furnishing a spacious roof for 
the dense foliage.” 

The weirder aspects of nature are sketched with no less ability 
than its calmer moods. An ecphrasis of a storm on the sea occurs 
in the first Letter to Olympias, 52, 549, 25: “If you like I will 
form an image of the things now taking place, so as to present the 
tragedy yet more distinctly to you. We behold a sea upheaved 
from the very lowest depths, some sailors floating dead upon the 
waves, others engulfed by them, the planks of the ships broken 
up, the sails torn to tatters, the masts sprung, the oars dashed out 
of the sailors’ hands, the pilots seated on the deck, clasping their 
knees with their hands instead of grasping the rudder, bewailing 
the hopelessness οὐ their situation with sharp cries and bitter 
lamentations, neither sky nor sea clearly visible, but all one deep 
and impenetrable darkness, so that no one can see his neighbor, 
whilst mighty is the roaring of the billows, and monsters of the 
sea attack the crews on every side.” Chrysostom here gives full 
scope to his eminent descriptive powers, and the result is a so- 
phistic ecphrasis of the first order, rich in detail, realistic, and 
vividly colored as any painting could be. Norden * cites it as an 
instance of the Asiatic style. Scenes of shipwreck and of a storm 
on the sea are familiar from the romances of the period. In the 
sermon on St. Roman, who is compared to a pilot steering his ship 
during a storm, we find this realistic image, 50, 615, 52: “The sea 
of idolatry was roaring blasphemies, and raging against the ship 
of the Church, and belching forth a foam of blood against the 
US es ” This is a favorite theme with Chrysostom; we 
find it treated again in 49, 109, 2, with a practical aim: “Behold 
this sea abounding with waves, and fierce winds; yet this sea, 
spacious and large, and furious as it is, is walled in with feeble 
sand! Mark also the wisdom of God, He permitted it not to be 
at rest, nor tranquil, lest you should suppose its good order to be 

4Die Antike Kunstprosa I, 571. 


90 


of mere natural regulation; but remaining within its limits, it 
lifts up its voice, and is in tumult, and roars aloud, and raises its 
waves to.a prodigious height. But when it comes to the shores, 
and beholds the sand, it breaks up, and returns back again within 
itself ; teaching you, by both these things, that it is not the work 
of nature that it remains within its boundaries, but the work of 
Him whose power restrains it!’ The description is one of simple 
grandeur, and the lesson is happily drawn. 

Thus far we have reviewed only descriptions of nature, but 
the sophist’s art was not restricted to so narrow a field. He must 
needs be able to describe a great variety of subjects, such as 
feasts, persons, works of art etc. 

Commenting on the text: “When thou makest a dinner or a 
supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, nor thy neighbors 
who are rich .. . . but the poor, the maimed, the lame, and the 
blind.””® Chrysostom makes this elaborate parallel, 62, 304, 36: 
“Let us suppose two tables, and let one be filled with these, and 
have the blind, the halt, the maimed in hand or leg, the barefoot, 
those clad with but one scanty garment, and that worn out: but 
let the other have grandees, generals, governors, great officers, 
arrayed in costly robes and fine lawn, belted with golden girdles. 
Again, here at the table of the poor let there be neither silver, nor 
store of wine, but just enough to refresh and gladden, and let 
the drinking cups and the rest of the vessels be made from glass 
only ; but there, at the table of the rich, let all the vessels be of 
silver and gold, and the semicircular table, not such as one person 
can lift, but as two young men can with difficulty move, and the 
wine-jars lie in order, glittering far beyond the silver with gold, 
and let the semicircle be smoothly laid all over with soft drapery. 
Here, again, let there be many servants, in garments not less orna- ἡ 
mented than those of the guests, and bravely appareled, and wear- 
ing loose trousers, men beauteous to look upon, in the very flower 
of life, plump, and well conditioned: but there let there be only 
two servants disdaining all that proud vanity. And let those have 
costly meats, but these only enough to appease hunger and inspire 
cheerfulness.” There is something dry and labored about this 
long description. The details are so plentiful that the preacher 
is sure of having satisfied the taste of his audience, for he con- 
tinues: “Have I said enough? and are both tables laid out with 
sufficient minuteness? Is anything wanting? I think not. For 
I have gone over the guests, and the costliness of the vessels, and 

S Luke XLV; 12) 1.5] 


91 


of the linen, and of the meats.” Here we have the preacher’s 
own admission that the exuberance of detail in this picture is 
conscious and intentional. Gregory Nazianzen gives an even more 
elaborate sketch of the refined luxury displayed in the houses of 
the rich.° | 


In the dramatic apostrophe to Eutropius, which opens the first 
homily of that name, 52, 391, we get a brilliant picture of the 
departed glory of the onetime powerful consul, who was clinging 
to the altar for asylum while Chrysostom thundered forth: 
““Vanity of vanities, all is vanity—it is always seasonable to 
utter this, but more especially at the present time. Where are 
now the brilliant surroundings of your consulship? where are the 
gleaming torches? Where is the dancing, and the noise of 
dancers’ feet, and the banquets and the festivals? where are the 
garlands and the curtains of the theatre? where is the applause 
which greeted you in the city, where the acclamation in the hip- 
podrome and the flatteries of spectators? They are gone—all 
gone! A wind has blown upon the tree shattering down all its 
leaves, and showing it to us quite bare, and shaken to its very 
root; for so great has been the violence of the blast, that it has 
given a shock to all these fibres of the tree, and threatens to tear 
it up from the roots. Where now are your feigned friends? 
where are your drinking parties and your suppers? where is the 
swarm of parasites, and the wine which used to be poured forth 
all day long, and the manifold dainties invented by your cooks? 
where are they who courted your power and did and said every- 
thing to win your favor? They were all mere visions of the 
night and dreams which have vanished with the dawn of day: 
they were spring flowers, and when the spring was over they all 
withered : they were a shadow which has passed away—they were 
a smoke which has dispersed, bubbles which have burst, cobwebs 
which have been rent in pieces. Therefore we chant continually 
this spiritual song—‘Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.’” 

Never was the emptiness of human glory driven home with 
more telling force. The cry, “Vanity of vanities,” comes like a 
natural refrain at the close of this pathetic dirge. The allegory 
of the tree graphically portrays the forlorn state of the wretched 
Eutropius. However, the power and beauty of this grand passage 
are impaired by that besetting fault of Chrysostom’s style, an 
oriental profusion of images. Seven metaphors, couched in six 
short clauses of parallel structure with homoioteleuta, follow one 

®* Cf. Guignet, 205 ff. 


92 


another in quick succession. This is Asiatic oratory in its highest 
development. 

Descriptions of persons: Chrysostom, like Gregory Nazian- 
zen,’ seems to have been averse to descriptions of physical beauty, 
for he is always harping on the futility of such charms, and laying 
stress on beauty of the soul. His attitude towards descriptions of 
cities, much in vogue among the sophists, was the same, as the 
following passage indicates, 49, 179, 8: “When you wish to pro- 
nounce an encomium on the city, tell me not of the suburb of 
Daphne, nor of the height and multitude of its cypresses, nor of 
its fountains of waters, nor of the great population who inhabit 
the city, nor of the great freedom ‘with which its market-place is 
frequented even to midnight, nor of the abundance of its wares! 
. . . . Butif you are able to mention virtue, meekness etc. ... . : 
commend the city for these things!”’ A little further on (ib. 22) 
we read: “And if you see a big man, who has been brought into 
good condition, tall, and surpassing others in length of limb, do 
not admire him, until you have ascertained what the man’s soul is. 
Not from the outward comeliness, but from the beauty that 
appertains to the soul, should we pronounce any person blessed !” 

But sometimes the stern preacher gives way to the sophist 
rhetor, as when he defines bodily beauty, 52, 412, 55: “What is 
beauty of body? An extended eyebrow, a merry glance, a 
blushing cheek, ruddy lips, a straight neck, long wavy hair, taper- 
ing fingers, upright stature, a fair blooming complexion.” Later 
he defines what virtues go to make up beauty of soul. This defi- 
nition, the details of which are dryly enumerated like a lesson of 
philosophy, for Chrysostom says (ib. 61): “Attend that you may 
learn the conception of philosophers,” accords with the scheme of 
Menander, which all sophists rigidly followed in their descriptions 
of personal beauty. 

Chrysostom’s vehement denunciations of the theatre suggested 
descriptions like the following, a character sketch of a youth im- 
personating a young girl, of an old man in the role of a slave, and 
of shameless actresses, 57, 426, 41: “For first one, being a young 
man, wears his hair long behind, and changing his nature into that 
of a woman, is striving both in aspect and in gesture, and in gar- 
ments, and generally in all ways, to pass into the likeness of a 
tender damsel. Then another who is grown old, in the opposite 
way to this, having his hair shaven, and with his loins girt about, 
his shame cut off before his hair, stands ready to be smitten with 

7 Cf. Guignet, 200. 


93 


the rod, prepared both to say and to do anything. The women 
again, their heads uncovered, stand without a blush, discoursing 
with a whole people, so complete is their practice in shameless- 
ness; and thus pour forth all effrontery and impurity into the 
souls of their hearers. And their one study is, to pluck up all 
chastity from the foundations, to disgrace our nature, to satiate 
the desire of the wicked demon. Yea, and there are both foul 
sayings, and gestures yet fouler; and the dressing of the hair 
tends that way, and the gait, and apparel, and voice, and flexure 
of the limbs; and there are turnings of the eyes, and flutes, and 
pipes, and dramas, and plots; all things, in short, full of the most 
extreme impurity.” This is a scathing arraignment of the loose 
morals of the stage. The individual sketches are complete and 
true to life; they are drawn from personal observation, for, as a 
young lawyer, Chrysostom had attended theatrical performances.® 
In his sermon Against the Games and Theatres, 56, 266, 37, is a 
short ecphrasis of a lewd dancer, and a little further on her image 
is sketched in a few words, 1b. 267, 4: τὰ ῥήματα, τὰ σχήματα, τὰ 
βλέμματα, ἡ βάδισις, ὃ ῥυθμὸς, ἡ διάκρισις, τὰ μέλη TA πορνικά. 

Description of Eutropius in Hom. I of that name, 52, 393, 21: 
“For who was more exalted than this man? Did he not surpass 
the whole world in wealth? had he not climbed to the very pin- 
nacle of distinction? did not all tremble and fear before him? 
Yet lo! he has become more wretched than the prisoner, more 
pitiable than the menial slave, more indigent than the beggar 
wasting away with hunger, having every day a vision of sharp- 
ened swords and of the criminal’s grave, and the public execu- 
tioner leading him out to his death; and he does not even know if 
_he once enjoyed past pleasure, nor is he sensible even of the sun’s 
ray, but at midday his sight is dimmed as if he were encompassed 
by the densest gloom. ... . But indeed, what need is there of 
any words from me, when he himself has clearly depicted this 
for us as in a visible image? For yesterday when they came to 
him from the royal court intending to drag him away by force, 
and he ran for refuge to the holy altar, his face was then, as it is 
now, no better than the countenance of one dead: and the chat- 
tering of his teeth, and the quaking and quivering of his whole 
body, and his faltering voice, and stammering tongue, and in fact 
his whole general appearance were suggestive of one whose soul 
was petrified.” 

8 On the Priesthood, 48, 624, 26. 


94 


This is a dramatic ecphrasis of gripping realism and touching 
pathos. The faithful, many of whom harbored deep resentment 
against the culprit, were moved to tears of pity (ib. 395, 31). 
The metaphors and comparisons are abundant and give to the 
tableau a rich and heavy coloring. Note the two cases of hyper- 
bole in the statements regarding Eutropius, “Did he not surpass 
the whole world in wealth?” and, “the man who was shaking the 
whole world.” The remark, “what need is there of any words 
from me, when he himself has clearly depicted this for us as ina 
visible image,” is of special interest as throwing light on the 
nature of the ecphrasis. It was the ambition of the sophists to 
make the ecphrasis rival a real painting in picturesqueness of 
detail, as well as in delicacy or boldness of shading. With this 
object in view, they were fond of describing works of art, paint- 
ings, statues etc., and sought to reproduce in words the striking 
effects of the original.? Chrysostom when introducing an ecphra- 
sis often uses expressions that clearly indicate his intention to 
emulate the sculptor’s or the painter’s art, e.g., leading up to his 
description of a storm and shipwreck on the sea, quoted above 
(p80), werread 52,5400 2h rns 
(mold, shape) τῶν γινομένων, and again, 50, 641, 34: “Recently, 
beloved, weaving for you the flowery garland of spring, and de- 
lineating, as it were, on the tablet of our discourse the season of 
the year, we showed you not only florid groves and blooming 
meadows and life-giving breezes etc.” 


\ > 4 \ ε / > / 
καὶ εἰ βούλει, Kal εἱκόνα ἀυαπλάττω 


The Homilies on the Statues contain some very dramatic 
descriptions of the gloom and despondency prevailing in Antioch 
after the overthrow of the statues of the emperor, and of the 
heartrending scenes occasioned by the prosecution of the guilty 
inhabitants. See especially 49, 35, 40; 56, 36; 136, 61; 137, 38. 

Description of a battle on land and sea, 48, 689, 42: This ex- 
tremely sophistic ecphrasis occurs in Book VI On the Priesthood, 
where Chrysostom explains to his friend Basil, why he shrank 
from becoming a bishop and a leader in the army of the Church. 
It is in reality the first part of a lengthy comparison illustrating 
the gigantic struggle of the powers of hell with the forces of 
Christ. Some of the details are reminiscent of the battle scenes 
of the Jliad. Descriptions of battles were in high favor with the 
rhetors: “Let there be an armament composed of infantry, cav- 
alry, and marines, and let a number of triremes cover the sea, 


9 For examples in Gregory of Nyssa see Méridier, 145, and for Gregory 
Nazianzen, Guignet, 200. 


SS το 


7 


a, 
as 
> 


95 


and phalanxes of foot and horse cover most of the plains, and 
the ridges of the mountains, and let the metal of their armor 
reflect the sunshine, and the glitter of the helmets and shields be 
reflected by the beams which are emitted from them (11. 13, 341) ; 
let the clashing of spears and the neighing of horses be borne up 
to the very heavens (J/. 12, 338), and let neither sea nor land 
appear, but only brass and iron in every direction. Let the enemy 
be drawn up in battle array opposite to these, fierce and savage 
men, and let the time of the engagement be now at hand. Then 
let some one suddenly seize some young lad, one of those brought 
up in the country, knowing nothing but the use of the shepherd’s 
pipe and crook; let him be clad in brazen armor, and let him be 
led round the whole camp and be shown the squadrons and their 
officers, the archers, slingers, captains, generals, the foot and 
horse, the spearmen, the triremes and their commanders, the 
dense mass of soldiers in the ships, and the multitude of engines 
of war lying ready on board. Let him be shown, moreover, the 
whole array of the enemy, their repulsive aspect, and the varied 
stores and unusual quantity of their arms; the ravines also and 
precipices of the mountains, deep and difficult. Let him be shown 
further on the enemy’s side, horses flying by some enchantment 
and infantry borne through the air, and sorcery of every power 
and form; and let him consider the calamities of war, the cloud of 
spears, the hailstorm of arrows (J/. 12, 156), that great mist and 
obscurity, that gloomiest night which the multitude of weapons 
occasions, eclipsing the sunbeams with their cloud, the dust (JI. 
13, 335) no less than the darkness baffling the eyesight. The tor- 
rents of blood (JI. 15, 715), the groans of the fallen, the shouts 
of the surviving (JI. 4, 450), the heaps of slain, wheels bathed in 
blood (Jl. 11, 534), horses with their riders thrown down headlong 
(11. 11, 159), owing to the number of corpses, the ground a scene 
of general confusion, blood, and bows, and arrows, hoofs of 
horses and heads of men lying together, a human arm and a 
chariot wheel and a helmet, a breast pierced through, brains stick- 
ing to swords, the point of a dart broken off with an eye transfixed 
upon it. Then let him reckon up the sufferings of the naval force, 
the triremes burning in the midst of the waves, and sinking with 
their armed crews, the roaring of the sea, the tumult of the sailors, 
the shout of the soldiers, the foam of the waves mixed with blood, 
and dashing over into all the ships ; the corpses on the decks, some 
sinking, some floating, some cast upon the beach, overwhelmed by 
the waves, and obstructing the passage of the ships. And when 


96 


he has been carefully instructed in all the tragedy of warfare, let 
the horrors of captivity and slavery be added to it, worse than 
any kind of death ; and having told him all this, bid him mount his 
horse straightway, and take command of all that armament.” 
This is an ideal sophistic ecphrasis worthy of an Aristides or a 
Libanius. The latter’s sketch in his Progymnasmata is on a 
smaller scale and takes in the scene of a battle on land only, while 
Chrysostom’s includes besides the spectacle of a naval engage- 
ment. Its elaborate character is emphasized by the multiplicity 
of details, some of which are of gruesome realism, the frequent 
parisa and occasional homoioteleuta, the bold image of “horses 
flying by some enchantment, and infantry borne through the air,” 
and the metaphors, “cloud of spears,” “the hailstorm of arrows,” 
“that great mist . . . ., that gloomiest night which the multitude 
of weapons occasions, eclipsing the sunbeams with their cloud,” τ 
and “the torrents of blood.” Note also the metaphor, “tragedy of 
warfare,’ a favorite expression of the sophists for scenes of a 
dramatic nature. It is interesting to compare with this ecphrasis 
of immoderate length the short one on the same theme, quoted in 
the chapter on comparisons (p. 79). In the latter Chrysostom 
has confined himself to a few meagre details, feeling, perhaps, 
that so lengthy a description would be out of place in a sermon. 


Descriptions of scenes of martyrdom: These are very numer- 
ous in the Christian orators and writers. It was natural that, in 
extolling the heroism of these valiant champions of the faith, they 
would dwell on the details of their agonizing struggles. Chrysos- 
tom is particularly fond of such descriptions. The following is a 
curious example of a descriptive soliloquy put into the mouth of 
Satan, who is represented as dissatisfied with the results of his 
plots against the Christians. The passage contains a series of 
comparisons that exhibit the flowery exuberance of Chrysostom’s 
style, 50, 609, 31: “I strewed red-hot coals under their feet, but 
they walked on them as on roses. I kindled fires, but they hurled 
themselves into them as into fountains of cooling water. I lac- 
erated their sides and cut in them deep furrows and drew forth 
rivers of blood, but they gloried as if bathed in (liquid) gold. I 
cast them down precipices and drowned them in the sea, but they 
exulted and rejoiced as if ascending to heaven, not as going down 
into the deep ; as if dancing in a sacred procession, and disporting 
on a green meadow ; they snatched at tortures, not as if they were 


10This commonplace of the rhetors is ridiculed by Lucian in his 
Teacher of Rhetoric, 18. 


τσ κα ο 4 νν 


97 


tortures, but as if plucking spring flowers and putting on a gar- 
co ἐν τς; ” The exaggerated and declamatory tone of this 
soliloquy is a sufficient indication of its sophistic character. 

This exaggeration of tone appears quite frequently in the 
descriptions of the tortures of the martyrs, and is sometimes com- 
bined with a gruesome realism, that is shocking to a modern 
reader, e.g., 50, 708, 49: “For they bound them on the rack, and 
dug their sides, and cut deep furrows, as if plowing the earth, 
and not cleaving bodies in twain; and one could see flanks cut 
open, ribs laid bare, breasts crushed in. And not even at this 
point did these blood-thirsty beasts halt in their rage, but taking 
the bodies off the rack they stretched them upon gridirons over 
red-hot coals, and here was a sight more horrible than the first, 
double drippings issuing from the bodies, the ones of flowing 
blood, the others of burnt flesh. But the martyrs lay on the coals 
as on roses, and contemplated their tortures with delight.” 

The mother of the Maccabees is described as witnessing the 
dreadful agony of her sons in 50, 621, 31: “Let us consider what 
that woman must have suffered, if we may call her a woman, 
when she saw the fingers twitching over the red-hot coals, the 
head falling off, the iron hand placed upon the head of another, 
and stripping off the skin, and him who suffered all this still 
standing erect and speaking.” Again, in 50, 626, 4: “When she 
saw one hurrying towards the seething cauldron, another to the 
frying-pan, and another being beheaded, she exulted as if she 
were arraying one in his nuptial attire, and weaving garlands for 
another, and spreading the nuptial couch for another. And all 
was filled with smoke and the odor of roasting flesh. With all her 
senses she perceived the trial of her children: she beheld them 
with her eyes, she heard their words with her ears, and with her 
nose perceived the odor of flesh, which was both savory and un- 
savory : unsavory indeed to the unbelievers, but to God and to her 
Migs SWCCL. /... ... 

In 50, 695, 22, the executioners are represented as wild beasts, 
prowling around the bodies of the martyrs, cutting open their 
sides, lacerating their flesh, laying bare their bones, and pene- 
trating to their very vitals. The devil is described in the same 
manner in 50, 696, 22. 

The sophists were fond of describing works of art, paintings. 
statues, etc. Chrysostom follows the fashion in an ecphrasis on 
the tortures of the martyrs sketched as in a painting, 50, 712, 5: 
“Paint on the walls of your soul the tortures of the martyrs, as 


98 


those who wish to embellish their homes decorate them with 
bright-colored pictures. This kind of painting is inexpensive and 
needs no artist, 4... Let us paint on our soul those lying in a 
frying-pan, those stretched upon live coals, those thrown into a 
seething cauldron, those drowned in the sea; others lacerated, 
others stretched upon a wheel, others hurled over precipices; 
some fighting with wild beasts, others thrown into a yawning 
abyss, others losing their life in diverse ways, in order that, em- 
bellishing our house with such pictures, we may make it a suitable 
abode for the King of heaven. For if He sees such pictures in 
our soul, He will come with the Father, and take up his abode in 
company with the Holy Spirit, and our soul will henceforth be a 
kind of royal palace ; no unseemly thought will enter there ; whilst 
the memory of the martyrs, like a florid picture, will remain there 
always, and will emit a great splendor, etc.” Note how happily 
and with what warmth of feeling Chrysostom draws a moral 
lesson in this ecphrasis. 

Nothing could better illustrate Chrysostom’s adaptation of 
pagan literary forms to the exigencies of the Christian homily 
than the gorgeous encomium on St. John the Evangelist which 
forms the introduction to Hom. I on St. John, 59, 25, and 26. 
Referring briefly to the enthusiastic interest of his countrymen in 
the spectacles of the games, the show-declamations of the sophists, 
and the performances of musicians, Chrysostom comes to his 
main subject: “And if in the case of rhetoricians, musicians, and 
athletes, people sit in the one case to look on, and in the other to 
see at once and to listen with such earnest attention; what zeal, 
what earnestness ought you in reason to display, when it is no 
musician or debater who now comes forward to a trial of skill, 
but when a man is speaking from heaven, and utters a voice 
plainer than thunder? for he has pervaded the whole earth with 
the sound, and occupied and filled it, not by the loudness of the 
cry, but by moving his tongue with the grace of God. 

And what is wonderful, this sound, great as it is, is neither 
harsh nor an unpleasant one, but sweeter and more delightful 
than all harmony of music, and with more skill to soothe (θέλξαιλν ; 
and besides all this, most holy and most awful, and full of mys- 
teries great, that if men were exactly and with ready mind to 
receive and keep them, they could no longer be mere men, nor 
remain upon earth, but would take their stand above all the things 
of this life, and having adapted themselves to the conditions of 
angels, would dwell on earth just as if it were heaven. 


99 


For the son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the 
Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, 
who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, 
who lay upon his Master’s bosom with much confidence, this man 
comes forward to us now, not as an actor of a play, not hiding his 
head with a mask (for he has another sort of words to speak), 
nor mounting a platform, nor striking the stage with his foot, nor 
dressed out with apparel of gold, but he enters wearing a robe of 
inconceivable beauty. For he will appear before us having “put 
on Christ,” ** having his beautiful “feet shod with the preparation 
of the Gospel of peace” ;'* wearing a girdle not about his waist, 
but about his loins, not made of scarlet leather, nor daubed out- 
side with gold, but woven and composed of truth itself. Now will 
he appear before us, not acting a part (for with him there is noth- 
ing counterfeit, nor fiction, nor fable), but with unmasked head 
he proclaims to us the truth unmasked ; not making the audience 
believe him other than he is by carriage, by look, by voice, needing 
for the delivery of his message no instruments of music, as harp, 
lyre, or any other the like, for he effects all with his tongue, utter- 
ing a voice which is sweeter and more profitable than that of any 
harper or any music. All heaven is his stage; his theatre the 
habitable world; his audience, all angels; and of men as many as 
are angels already, or desire to become so, for none but these can 
hear that harmony aright, and show it forth by their works. ... . 

By this apostle stand the powers from above, marvelling at 
the beauty of his soul, and his understanding, and the bloom of 
that virtue by which he drew unto him Christ himself, and ob- 
tained the grace of the Spirit. For he has made ready his soul, 
as some well-fashioned and jeweled lyre with strings of gold, 
and yielded it for the utterance of something great and sublime to 
the Spirit. 

The strongly sophistic color of this ecphrasis is tinctured with 
Scriptural metaphors and expressions. St. John is portrayed as 
a sophist, actor, and musician of a transcendent and supramun- 
dane type, contrasted with the ordinary type in a series of paral- 
lels, in which the details of his appearance, dress, carriage, and 
voice are traced with studious precision. The metaphors and 
comparisons drawn from the stage and from musical art empha- 
size the theatrical tone of the whole. The use Of θέλξαι to desig- 
nate the effect of St. John’s preaching is notable here, for the 


11 Rom. XIII, 14; Gal. III, 27. 
12 Eph, VI, 15. 


100 


sophists, as far back as Thrasymachus and Gorgias, regarded 
κηλεῖν, θέλγειν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους as the chief purpose of their γί. 
This description strikingly exemplifies the union of profane and 
Christian elements in Chrysostom’s oratory. 

We have in this chapter reviewed quite a representative col- 
lection of the types of ecphrasis which were current among the 
sophists. But in justice to Chrysostom we must concede that, 
while some of his descriptions display an abundance of graphic 
details hardly called for, there are others which exhibit great 
moderation and are justified for homiletic and apologetic reasons. 
Chrysostom, like Gregory Nazianzen, has transformed the futile 
sophistic ecphrasis, which served only for display, into a means 
of edification and moral instruction, notably by his descriptions 
of the struggles of the martyrs. This transformation is another 
proof of the regenerating influence of the Christian religion, 
which breathed a new life into the sterile and effete forms of 
pagan literature, by giving to its orators ideas of vital and ab- 
sorbing interest in place of the frivolous and immoral themes of 
pagan mythology.** 


13 Cf. Norden, Die Antike Kunstprosa, I, 7. 
14 Cf. Guignet, 210. 


CONCLUSION 


Our examination of the panegyrical and selected occasional 
sermons of St. John Chrysostom has established the fact that the 
rhetoric of the second sophistic has exerted a profound influence 
on his oratory. We have traced this influence in his liberal use of 
certain minor rhetorical figures, chief among which are allitera- 
tion, paronomasia, and paradox; in his great fondness for clauses 
of parallel structure, some of which are antithetical and enhanced 
by the poetical element of the homoioteleuton ; in his immoderate 
redundance of metaphors, his preference for metaphors of estab- 
lished profane origin, and in the labored ingenuity, the exagger- 
ated, theatrical, and extravagant tone of others; in his compari- 
sons, many of which are far-fetched, bizarre, puerile, hyperbolical 
and paradoxical, drawn chiefly from profane sources, heaped up 
at times in excessive profusion, and pursued with studied arti- 
ficiality into the minutest details. Only in regard to the ecphrasis 
have we found Chrysostom less strongly influenced by profane 
rhetoric. Although he reproduces some of the favorite types of 
the ecphrasis, the latter is not exclusively a means of embellish- 
ment with Chrysostom. On the contrary, he generally employs it 
with a practical view of edification or moral instruction. 


Some modern critics seem to minimize too strongly the influ- 
ence of the sophistic rhetoric on Chrysostom. Thus L. Acker- 
mann‘ makes the strange statement: “Der hl. Johannes Chrysos- 
tomus spricht in dem Stile des hl. Paulus... .. Der griechische 
Stil ist zur Zeit des Heiligen lange nicht mehr rein und nattrlich 
gewesen. Selbst Libanius, der berithmteste Rhetoriker damaliger 
Zeit, hat sich nicht dem Einflusse des schlechten Geschmackes 
entziehen kénnen. Aber Chrysostomus hielt sich davon frei, sagt 
eramer, τος * Manirirtheit aber findet sich bei Chrysostomus 


U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff makes the sweeping asser- 
tion:* “In den grossen Reden, . . . . schwellen die wohllauten- 
den Perioden an, reicher wird der Schmuck, aber nirgend etwas 


1 Die Beredsamkeit des hl. Johannes Chrysostomus, 99. 
2 Des hl. Kirchenlehrers Johannes Chrysostomus Predigten, verbessert 
von P. Vital Moésl, 10 Bande, 2 Aufl, Augsburg 1782, Vorrede zum 2. Bd. 
3 Kultur der Gegenwart, Teil I, Abt. VIII, 214. 
101 


102 


von dem Geklapper der Reime oder Kadenzen, nur ganz sparsam 
die Rede, welche Leidenschaft weckt, wohl aber die uberlegene 
Kunst dessen, der die Seele nicht uberrumpeln oder faszinieren. 
sondern Kopf und Herz zugleich gewinnén will.” 

O. Bardenhewer‘* minimizes the sophistic influence in Chrys- 
ostom: “So gewiss er nicht umsonst die Schule dex Libanius 
besucht hat, so wird man doch nur aus seiner Anfangerzeit viel- | 
leicht einzelne Predigten vorweisen kénnen, in denen der So- 
phistenzogling das Wort ftihrt und sein Repertoire an Tropen und 
Figuren ausbreitet, wahrend in der Folge der Rhetor bescheiden 
hinter den Prediger zurticktritt, und sich lediglich bestrebt zeigt, 
die Zwecke des letzteren zu fordern.” 

These statements, it would seem to us, are too sweeping, and 
deserve to be modified or corrected, at least as regards the pane- 
gyrical sermons. Chrysostom is often prodigal of rhetorical . 
ornament, he is not free from the bad taste and the mannerisms 
of the sophistic rhetoric, there is abundant evidence of the jingle 
of rhyme, and monotonous parallelism of structure, and these 
traits appear not only in his earlier efforts, but also in his later 
sermons. 

All this does not quite harmonize with Chrysostom’s own 
homiletic theories, which we have discussed in our second chapter 
(p. 25 ff.). We have seen him severely denouncing those preachers 
who busied themselves about the harmony and composition of 
their periods, and who strove to entertain their audience by a 
show of eloquence. There can be no doubt that Chrysostom him- 
self is at times guilty of the very faults which he censures in 
others. Are we justified then in accusing him of insincerity? 
By no means. His irreproachable, stainless character, his exalted 
conception of the dignity of the Christian preacher’s office, place 
him above all suspicion of insincerity. In fairness to him we 
must concede that, generally, he is true to his principles, but that, 
when he violates them, he does so unconsciously. The manner- 
isms of profane rhetoric had become, as it were, his second nature, 
so that, while he strove to avoid the grosser excesses of the ora- 
tory of show and display, he could not altogether eradicate intel- 
lectual habits that were deep-rooted and of long standing. This 
may be regrettable, but it is only the natural and logical result of 
his education and environment. 

Yet it is a great satisfaction to know that Chrysostom’s rhe- 
torical defects are overborne by his excellences. Though strongly 

4 Geschichte der Altkirchlichen Literatur, Bd. III, 353. 


103 


influenced by the profane rhetoric, that influence is never oppres- 
sive as in the pagan sophists, nor even as powerful as in Gregory 
of Nyssa and Gregory Nazianzen. His sermons by no means 
reveal that preponderance of form over matter which is so de- 
plorable in the sophists, notably in his teacher Libanius. Beneath 
the artistic, and sometimes artificial garb of his style, there is a 
rich fund of intensely vital and practical, lofty and grand ideas, 
worthy of the sublime doctrines which he propounds. 


In no way then do we regard it as a misfortune that Chrys- 
ostom proclaimed the simple truths of Christianity in the polished 
language of profane rhetoric, nor do we wish that he had rather 
chosen the plain and unadorned style of the first preachers of the 
Gospel. Such a course would have been altogether unsuited to 
the needs and exigencies of the times. The refined and cultured 
audiences of Antioch and Constantinople would have ignored a 
preacher whose exposition of doctrine was devoid of the graces 
and embellishments of language which they prized so highly. 
The heretics and infidels, who were either to be refuted or won 
over to the truth, would have scorned and ridiculed him. He 
would have done a poor service to the religion whose foremost 
champion divine Providence had destined him to be. 

Thus we see in Chrysostom’s oratory the profane and the 
sacred element blended in harmonious union. Despite his occa- 
sional bitter attacks on pagan writers, Chrysostom stands forth 
in theory and in practice as one of the foremost advocates of a 
compromise between Hellenism and Christianity ; a compromise to 
which Origen has given such admirable expression:* “Unde et 
nos si forte aliquando invenimus aliquid sapienter a gentilibus 
dictum, non continuo cum auctoris nomine spernere debemus et 
dicta, nec pro eo, quod legem a deo datam tenemus, convenit nos 
tumere superbia et spernere verba prudentium, sed sicut apostolus 
dicit : ‘omnia probantes, quod bonum est tenentes’ (ad Thessal. 1, 
5, 21).” Chrysostom is indeed, as Villemain styles him, “par 
excellence le Grec devenu chrétien,” he is in the words of the same 
writer: “Le plus grand orateur de |’Eglise primitive, le plus vivant 
témoin de cette mémorable époque.” ° 


5In Exod. hom. XI, 6, M. 12, 380. 
ὁ De Péloquence chrétienne dans le quatriéme sitécle, 351. 


ΜΝ 


Thomas Edward Ameringer was born at Cincinnati, Ohio, 
February 19, 1886. He received his elementary education in the 
parish schools and his classical training in St. Francis Seraphic 
College (now St. Francis Preparatory Seminary) of the same 
city. He entered the Order of Friars Minor August 15, 1903. 
After his religious profession he made his philosophical and theo- 
logical studies in the monasteries of his province at St. Bernard, 
Ohio, Louisville, Kentucky, and Oldenburg, Indiana. He was 
raised to the priesthood June 22, 1911. From 1911-1918 he was 
instructor in Latin and German at St. Francis Preparatory Semi- 
nary. In January, 1919, he entered the Catholic University of 
America, where, in June, 1920, he received the degree of M. A. 
During his course at the University he attended the lectures of 
Roy Joseph Deferrari, M. A., Ph.D., on Greek and Latin Litera- 
ture, and of Rev. James Aloysius Geary, A. B., on Comparative 
Philology. 








